|
===========================================================
Oral argument previews:
Prepared by the liibulletin editorial board:
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/bulletin/04board.htm >
=============================================================
Property, Fifth Amendment, Due Process, Eminent Domain,
Public Use
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut (04-108)
In 1998, the small town of New London, Connecticut saw a
dramatic turnaround in its economic fate when pharmaceutical
giant Pfizer announced its development of a waterfront global
research facility in the citys Fort Trumbull area. New
London created a development corporation to revitalize the
area around the new facility, and granted this entity the
power of eminent domain. This power has long enabled
governments to condemnessentially takeprivate property for
"public use," so long as they conform to due process and
provide just compensation. In this case, the development
corporation filed condemnation proceedings against the
petitioners in an attempt to condemn their homessome of
which had been in their families for over a century. This
property was to be used to create an office park, a parking
lot, and a new park. This case tests the limits of the
governments power to take private property for "public use"
under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution
in circumstances when the "use" is largely commercial.
Continues:
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-108.html >
=============================================================
Civil procedure, jurisdiction, Civil Dual Federal and State
Jurisdiction, Rooker-Feldman Doctrine, Preclusion Principles
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (03-1696)
The Supreme Court faces the issue of whether the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from conducting de
facto appellate review of decisions by state courts, may be
interpreted to incorporate preclusion principles and deny
jurisdiction to federal courts because a pending state-court
proceeding presents identical issues, notwithstanding the
long-established system of dual federal and state jurisdiction.
Continues:
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-1696.html >
=============================================================
Property, Regulatory Takings, Just Compensation Clause, State
Economic Legislation, Standard of review
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc (04-163)
Courts are currently divided on which of two tests should be
used to analyze a regulatory takings challenge to a rent
control statute. One test analyzes the challenge under the
Takings Clause, inquiring whether the statute substantially
advances a legitimate state interest. The other test analyzes
the challenge under the Due Process Clause, inquiring merely
whether the legislature could have rationally believed that
the statute would substantially advance a legitimate state
interest a less stringent test. The Supreme Court will
resolve the issue of which test is to be applied.
Continues:
< http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-163.html >
------------------------------------------------------------------
Previews are archived at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/
Recent Supreme Court decisions are archived at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ (in HTML versions prepared
by the LII and the original PDF files received from the Court)
Help support this free service: http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/
You are currently subscribed to liibulletin as:
bernie@fantasyfarm.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-liibulletin-8290T@lists.law.cornell.edu. Alternatively, you can visit
http://liibulletin.law.cornell.edu to end or alter your
subscription or to share this resource with others.
|
| |
| |
|
