Kelo v. City of New London

Kelo v. New LondonSusette KeloKeloKelo caseKelo DecisionKelo v New LondonLogan Darrow Clements
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 private owner to further economic development.wikipedia
152 Related Articles

John Paul Stevens

Justice StevensStevensJohn P. Stevens
Oral arguments were presented on behalf of the petitioners (plaintiffs) by Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice in Washington D.C. and on behalf of the respondents (defendants) by Wesley W. Horton of Horton, Shields & Knox in Hartford, CT. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.
Stevens's majority opinions in landmark cases include Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Apprendi v. New Jersey, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Kelo v. City of New London, and Massachusetts v. EPA.

Berman v. Parker

The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider questions raised in Berman v. Parker, and later in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff,.
The case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).

Public use

public purposepublic use clausepublic purposes
In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This controversy was renewed after the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005).

Flemming L. Norcott Jr.

Flemming L. Norcott, Jr.
The state court issued its decision (268 Conn. 1, SC16742) on March 9, 2004, siding with the city in a 4–3 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., joined by Justices David M. Borden, Richard N. Palmer and Christine Vertefeuille.
Justice Norcott authored the majority opinion in the controversial 2004 Kelo v. New London case related to eminent domain.

Sandra Day O'Connor

Justice O'ConnorSandra Day O’ConnorO'Connor
Oral arguments were presented on behalf of the petitioners (plaintiffs) by Scott G. Bullock of the Institute for Justice in Washington D.C. and on behalf of the respondents (defendants) by Wesley W. Horton of Horton, Shields & Knox in Hartford, CT. The case was heard by only seven members of the court with Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor presiding, as Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recuperating from medical treatment at home and Associate Justice John Paul Stevens was delayed on his return to Washington from Florida; both absent Justices read the briefs and oral argument transcripts and participated in the case decision.
On February 22, 2005, with Rehnquist and Stevens (who were senior to her) absent, she became the senior justice presiding over oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London and becoming the first woman to do so before the Court.

Peter T. Zarella

Peter Zarella
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote the dissent, joined by Chief Justice William J. Sullivan and Justice Joette Katz.
In 2004, Zarella authored the dissenting opinion (joined by then-Chief Justice William J. Sullivan and Associate Justice Joette Katz) in the important Kelo v. City of New London case.

Institute for Justice

Susette Kelo's supporters ranged from the libertarian Institute for Justice (the lead attorneys on the case) to the NAACP, AARP, the late Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference and South Jersey Legal Services.
The organization gained national attention in 1996, defending a small business owner in a case involving Trump Casino (Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Coking), and again in 2005, arguing Kelo v. City of New London before the Supreme Court.

Connecticut Supreme Court

Supreme Court of ConnecticutConnecticut Supreme Court of ErrorsSupreme Court
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London.
One of the most important cases the court has decided was Kelo v. City of New London (2004), appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtSupreme Court
This case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from a decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in favor of the City of New London. 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 private owner to further economic development.
Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery; Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal; Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as undermining property rights.

New London, Connecticut

New LondonNew London, CTNew London, Conn.
The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan."
This measure was supported in the 2005 Supreme Court ruling of Kelo v. City of New London, and the homes were ultimately demolished by the city as part of an economic development plan.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fifth AmendmentFifthU.S. Const. amend. V
In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
This was upheld on June 23, 2005, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelo v. City of New London. This 5–4 decision remains controversial.

Jodi Rell

M. Jodi RellRellMary Jodi Rell
In June 2006, Governor M. Jodi Rell intervened with New London city officials, proposing the homeowners involved in the suit be deeded property in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood so they may retain their homes.
In June 2006, Rell intervened with New London city officials, proposing that homeowners displaced by the Kelo v. New London court decision be deeded property so they may retain homes in the neighborhood.

Anthony Kennedy

Justice KennedyKennedyAnthony M. Kennedy
Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Several weeks later, in the controversial case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005), he joined the four more liberal justices in supporting the local government's power to take private property for economic development through the use of eminent domain.

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property Act of 2005

Protection of Homes, Small Businesses and Private Property Act of 2005
This bill was introduced to counter the controversial Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. New London, which expanded the power of states to use eminent domain to confiscate homes, businesses, and private property for "economic development", rather than just "public use".

Little Pink House

Benedict's account was adapted into a film, Little Pink House, released in 2018.
It is based on the events related to Kelo v. City of New London, a U.S. Supreme Court case in which Kelo unsuccessfully sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for its controversial use of eminent domain.

Pfizer

Pfizer Inc.Pfizer, Inc.Pfizer Inc
Pfizer, whose employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies.
Pfizer was discussed as part of the Kelo v. New London case that was decided by U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.

Constitution of New Hampshire

New Hampshire Constitutionstate constitutionConstitution of the State of New Hampshire
In 2006, the New Hampshire Legislature proposed an amendment to the state constitution providing that "no part of a person's property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property."
It was one of many actions that various states took, in the wake of Kelo v. City of New London the previous year, to limit the uses of eminent domain permitted by that decision.

2006 Arizona Proposition 207

207Arizona Proposition 207 (2006)Prop. 207
Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, passed in 2006.
and the eminent domain portion is similar to initiatives advanced in numerous states following the United States Supreme Court's Kelo v. City of New London decision.

Lost Liberty Hotel

Logan Clements
The proposal was a reaction to the Supreme Court's Kelo v. New London (2005) decision in which Souter joined the majority ruling that the U.S. Constitution allows the use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned real property for use in private economic development projects.

City of Norwood v. Horney

Norwood, Ohio v. Horney
An attempted use of eminent domain was brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in City of Norwood v. Horney.
The case came upon the heels of Kelo v. City of New London, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain.

Tom Vilsack

Thomas VilsackThomas J. Vilsack
Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) vetoed the bill, prompting the first special session of the Iowa Legislature in more than 40 years.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London in June 2005, Vilsack vetoed a bill to restrict Iowa's use of eminent domain, citing its potential for negative impact on job creation.

Constitution Park (New Hampshire)

Constitution Park
It came in response to the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London.

2008 California Propositions 98 and 99

Proposition 9998California Proposition 98 (2008)
Subsequently, Proposition 99 passed in the June 2008 election.
The propositions were partly a reaction to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, which held that the power of eminent domain can sometimes be used to transfer property from one private owner to another.

Constitution of Florida

Florida Constitutionstate constitutionConstitution of the State of Florida
Florida passed a 2006 ballot measure amending the Florida Constitution to restrict use of eminent domain.
Section 6c, resulting from the Kelo v. City of New London decision, prohibits the conveyance of property taken by eminent domain to another person or private entity without 3/5ths approval of both houses of the Florida Legislature.

2006 California Proposition 90

Proposition 9090California Proposition 90 (2006)
Proposition 90, which attempted to exploit the unpopularity of Kelo for a different objective, failed in the November 2006 election.