Damages. Measure of Damages: Eminent Domain. Foreign Built Vessel's Domestic Reproduction Cost Less Depreciation Is Valid Measure of Just Compensation

1954 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 891
Keyword(s):  
Eminent Domain ◽  
Valid Measure ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
Reproduction Cost

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.

scholarly journals Law and Policy Resource Guide: A Survey of Eminent Domain Law in Texas and the Nation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlyn Ashley ◽  
Elizabeth Spencer Berthiaume ◽  
Philip Berzin ◽  
Rikki Blassingame ◽  
Stephanie Bradley Fryer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Private Property ◽  
State Legislatures ◽  
The United States ◽  
Eminent Domain ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Property Rights ◽  
Just Compensation ◽  
The Government

Eminent Domain is the power of the government or quasi-government entities to take private or public property interests through condemnation. Eminent Domain has been a significant issue since 1879 when, in the case of Boom Company v. Patterson, the Supreme Court first acknowledged that the power of eminent domain may be delegated by state legislatures to agencies and non-governmental entities. Thus, the era of legal takings began. Though an important legal dispute then, more recently eminent domain has blossomed into an enduring contentious social and political problem throughout the United States. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Thus, in the wake of the now infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, where the Court upheld the taking of private property for purely economic benefit as a “public use,” the requirement of “just compensation” stands as the primary defender of constitutionally protected liberty under the federal constitution. In response to Kelo, many state legislatures passed a variety of eminent domain reforms specifically tailoring what qualifies as a public use and how just compensation should be calculated. Texas landowners recognize that the state’s population is growing at a rapid pace. There is an increasing need for more land and resources such as energy and transportation. But, private property rights are equally important, especially in Texas, and must be protected as well. Eminent domain and the condemnation process is not a willing buyer and willing seller transition; it is a legally forced sale. Therefore, it is necessary to consider further improvements to the laws that govern the use of eminent domain so Texas landowners can have more assurance that this process is fair and respectful of their private property rights when they are forced to relinquish their land. This report compiles statutes and information from the other forty-nine states to illustrate how they address key eminent domain issues. Further, this report endeavors to provide a neutral third voice in Texas to strike a more appropriate balance between individual’s property rights and the need for increased economic development. This report breaks down eminent domain into seven major topics that, in addition to Texas, seemed to be similar in many of the other states. These categories are: (1) Awarding of Attorneys’ Fee; (2) Compensation and Valuation; (3) Procedure Prior to Suit; (4) Condemnation Procedure; (5) What Cannot be Condemned; (6) Public Use & Authority to Condemn; and (7) Abandonment. In analyzing these seven categories, this report does not seek to advance a particular interest but only to provide information on how Texas law differs from other states. This report lays out trends seen across other states that are either similar or dissimilar to Texas, and additionally, discusses interesting and unique laws employed by other states that may be of interest to Texas policy makers. Our research found three dominant categories which tend to be major issues across the country: (1) the awarding of attorneys’ fees; (2) the valuation and measurement of just compensation; and (3) procedure prior to suit.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document