In Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut , the court held that
A) eminent domain was unconstitutional because some of the benefits went to private individuals.
B) public purpose was narrowly defined and eminent domain was unconstitutional because the property would not be put to public use.
C) the taking of Kelo's property was appropriate under the city's eminent domain power because the development plan was for a public purpose.
D) it was unconstitutional for a state to allow the power of eminent domain to be used to satisfy a development plan.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q15: The process whereby real property is sold
Q16: In Star Valley Ranch Association v. Daley,
Q17: A right of way over another's property
Q18: Fee simple estates
A) can never be alienated.
B)
Q19: Which of the following is a future
Q20: Leaving your car with your mechanic creates
Q21: In Martin v. Bicknell , the court
Q22: In CNX Gas Company LLC v. Rasnake,
Q24: In Chamberlain, L.L.C. v. City of Ames,
Q25: In Niesche v. Wilkinson , the court
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents