Kelo v. New London
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued February 22, 2005 Decided June 23, 2005
Full case name: Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al. Docket #: 04-108 Citations: 545 U.S. 469; 125 S. Ct. 2655; 162 L. Ed. 2d 439; 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5011; 60 ERC (BNA) 1769; 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 437 Prior history: Judgment defendants as regarding certain plaintiffs, judgment for remaining plaintiffs, Kelo v. City of New London, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 789 (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 13, 2002); affirmed and reversed in part, remanded, 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004); cert. granted, 542 U.S. 965 (2004) Subsequent history: Rehearing denied, 126 S. Ct. 24 (2005)
Holding
The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority by: Stevens Joined by: Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Concurrence by: Kennedy Dissent by: O'Connor Joined by: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas Dissent by: Thomas
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Most in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.

Welcome To SeizedPropertyAuctions.com

SeizedPropertyAuctions.com is the premier auction company for liquidating property seized by police and federal agencies, property from abandoned safe deposit boxes, seized bank ...

Read more...

U.S. Treasury - Seized Property Auctions

Auctions - real estate, cars, trucks, vans, homes, boats, aircraft, motorcycles, jewelry, electronics, antiques, luxury items, furnishings, household goods, tools, and more.

Read more...