Eminent Domain. Compensation. Market Value Enhanced by War and by Government Requisitions Held Valid Measure of Just Compensation

1948 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 880
Keyword(s):  
Market Value ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Valid Measure ◽  
Just Compensation

Introducing Evidence of Contamination and Offsetting Cost of Remediation in Determining Fair Market Value for Eminent Domain Awards: A Review of Interrelationship between Environmental and Acquisition Law

1996 ◽  
Vol 1527 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-30
Author(s):  
Leona D. Jochnowitz
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Remediation ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Environmental Laws ◽  
Environmental Liability ◽  
Fair Market ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Fair Market Value

The issue is whether evidence of contamination is admissible and remediation costs may be offset in determining fair market value in eminent domain proceedings. The answer will depend on an analysis of methods of valuation and local acquisition statutes; economic impact of environmental regulation; effectiveness of attempts to resolve issues of environmental liability in the context of eminent domain proceedings; preclusive or nonpreclusive effect of the determination of value on future liability for environmental remediation; and use of the property. To understand these issues, an acquiring agency should view an eminent domain proceeding from the clear vantage point of a potential defendant or plaintiff in an environmental case. How these questions can be decided consistently with both local acquisition law and the other bodies of state and federal environmental law is the subject of a variety of recent court decisions. The theme that arises from the cases is that it appears fair to discount the valuation of property if the owner's procedural rights are satisfied, including determinations as to liability and third-party actions. Nevertheless, once payment is discounted, it is critical that the transferee does not have to pay twice for the same remediation but should be liable under the environmental laws for new or newly discovered contamination. A partial indemnification may be appropriate. In addition, issues regarding just compensation may be raised when an acquiring agency not only values a compensation award at zero but also seeks compensation for remediation costs that exceed the value of the property. Alternatives should be explored for escrowing the remediation costs, inviting the owner to clean up the property now or indemnifying the owner to the extent of the discount against future liability. One solution will not fit all cases, but these and other alternatives will make owners and states more thoughtful when property is acquired and better able to plan for the uncertainties that can arise in environmental liability.

Taking Community Seriously: Lessons from the Israeli Disengagement Plan

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-171
Author(s):  
Shai Stern
Keyword(s):  
Private Property ◽  
Market Value ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Similar Formula ◽  
Property Owner ◽  
Residential Communities ◽  
Property Owners ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Right

Eminent domain, or the expropriation of private property, is among the most controversial of legal arrangements. The challenges and threats that it poses to private property make it the subject of debate and dispute. Surprisingly, however, most Western jurisdictions embrace a similar formula to address expropriation, both in terms of the purposes that justify such action and the compensation that should be awarded to property owners.This article challenges the prevailing eminent domain formula, according to which, regardless of the circumstances of the expropriation, compensation to the property owner is determined by reference to the market value of the property. By exploring the case of Israel's 2005 disengagement plan, as a result of which 21 residential communities were uprooted by expropriation, this article argues that loss of communality should be taken into account in expropriations that uproot entire communities. However, in order for the legal arrangement to be efficient, fair and, of no less importance, to reflect the values embodied in the right to property, it should be constituted within a normative infrastructure that takes into account the values that the society wishes to endorse, and the inner meaning of these values.

Legal Doctrine and Judicial Review of Eminent Domain in China

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Wenzheng Mao ◽  
Shitong Qiao
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Systematic Investigation ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Authoritarian State ◽  
Just Compensation

Which of the three legal doctrines of public use, just compensation, and due process is the most effective in constraining abuses of eminent domain power? This article addresses this question for the first time and presents the first-ever systematic investigation of the judicial review of eminent domain in China. Our empirical study reveals that Chinese courts focus on eminent domain procedures while rarely supporting claims based on public interest or just compensation. Procedural rules are determinate and therefore easier to enforce than substantial standards of public interest and just compensation. Chinese courts also choose to focus on eminent domain procedures to confine their own judicial review power for the purpose of self-preservation in an authoritarian state that empowers the courts to monitor and control local governments but does not want them to become too powerful. The study calls for a “due process revolution” in eminent domain law and introduces the “judicial politics of legal doctrine” approach to the study of Chinese law, an approach that takes both political institutions and legal doctrines seriously.

Remodeling Just Compensation: Applying Restorative Justice to Takings Law Doctrine

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 413-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shai Stern
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Change ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Scholarly Discourse

Compensation for expropriation in most western jurisdictions aims to provide justice. Yet, while this quest for justice is inherent in expropriation laws, they nevertheless say little, if any, about the underlying conception of justice or how justice should be pursued. A closer examination of courts’ judgments, as well as scholarly discourse on the quest for justice in expropriations reveals a muddled dialogue in which divergent justifications pull one towards different normative and positive conclusions. Currently, expropriation doctrine purports to incorporate a sense of fair dealings with those who become victim to legal devices such as eminent domain. However, based on current case law, the reality of expropriation laws fails to reflect any true practice of justice.This Article suggests a conceptual change in expropriation laws’ remedial scheme by embracing restorative justice as the underlying concept of what constitutes justice in expropriation law. By establishing expropriation law on a restorative conception of justice, a coherent framework will emerge that is circumstances attentive and will provide practical instruments to overcome some of current law’s most significant challenges. This opens a new venue for both expropriation law and restorative justice. Equally important, the Article provides a novel opportunity to consider restorative justice beyond the borders of criminal law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document