{"id":369159,"date":"2017-04-25T12:22:02","date_gmt":"2017-04-25T17:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/realestate\/land-use-laws\/eminent-domain-cases-and-history.html"},"modified":"2024-05-17T14:53:26","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T19:53:26","slug":"eminent-domain-cases-and-history","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/realestate\/land-use-laws\/eminent-domain-cases-and-history.html","title":{"rendered":"Eminent Domain Cases and History"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

Eminent Domain Cases and History<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By FindLaw Staff<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Robert Rafii, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

Throughout American history, the ability to own land has shaped federal and state property rights laws. But personal property rights are not absolute. The government has abundant power to seize private property through the power of eminent domain<\/a>. But laws and court decisions have limited condemnation proceedings<\/a> to ensure the government\u2019s power is not abused. Private owners have due process rights that entitle them to the fair market value of their lands. Read this article to learn more about the history of eminent domain and how it has affected owners.<\/p>\r\n

What Is Eminent Domain?<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

The concept of eminent domain dates back to ancient times. But in the U.S., the power of eminent domain rests in the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment<\/a> of the U.S. Constitution. The Takings Clause, which is part of the Bill of Rights<\/a>, says that property can only be taken for public use if the owner is justly reimbursed. All jurisdictions in the United States are subject to this eminent domain law.<\/p>\r\n

Eminent domain is the power of state governments, local governments, and federal governments to take private property<\/a> for public use. Private land, including homeowner real estate, may be taken to build highways and public parks. Farms can be taken to create conservation areas. Buildings can be taken from private entities for urban renewal across municipalities.<\/p>\r\n

Suppose the state of Texas wants to curb oil drilling for a public benefit. They might take land owned by an oil company in order to turn it into a park. Or suppose the state of Ohio wants to raise tax revenues by growing interstate trade with Michigan. To achieve this, the states might allow a railroad company to construct public utility railways through private land.<\/p>\r\n

In these cases, the state governments are <\/i>condemning authorities<\/b> <\/i>who are required to pay out for the value of the property taken. If they fail to make sufficient payment, private owners may bring inverse condemnation<\/a> actions. An inverse condemnation lawsuit can curb eminent domain abuse by requiring the government to justify its taking.<\/p>\r\n

Government Interference With Property<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

"Taking" can also occur when the government’s conduct interferes with a person’s use of their property. For example, the government opened a shooting range<\/a> near someone’s property. In another case, a government agency directed airport traffic<\/a> over a chicken farmer’s land. The disturbance to these property owners amounted to a taking, and the government had to compensate them.<\/p>\r\n

A private landowner must be paid \u201cjust compensation" for the loss of use of their property. But if the property was used for criminal activities, it would be subject to civil forfeiture<\/a>. Real property taken for this reason is exempt from eminent domain law.<\/p>\r\n

Read on to learn more about specific eminent domain cases and history.<\/p>\r\n

Prominent Examples of Eminent Domain Cases<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

Eminent domain cases<\/a> typically focus on the public use requirement and the right to just compensation. In general, the courts have given great deference to legislative judgments. Below are some of the more significant eminent domain cases.<\/p>\r\n

Kohl v. United States (1875)<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

In Kohl v. United States<\/i>, the court ruled that the federal government could, with just compensation<\/a>, seize private property to build a post office and other government buildings. Justice William Strong emphasized that the federal government’s eminent domain power was \u201cessential to its independent existence and perpetuity."<\/p>\r\n

Berman v. Parker (1954)<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

In this case, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of \u201cpublic use<\/a>" to include \u201cpublic purpose." Consequently, the court ruled that the government could transfer property<\/a> from one private party to another. This would be part of a redevelopment plan that serves a public purpose. Examples of such a purpose include general aesthetics and redevelopment of a blighted neighborhood.<\/p>\r\n

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

To deal with what the Hawaiian state legislature saw as a land oligopoly, lawmakers took action. They allowed land to be transferred from private landowners to a larger population of private residents. The court upheld the taking as a permissible public use.<\/p>\r\n

Penn Central v. New York City (1978)<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

The Penn Central Transportation Company wanted to build an office tower above its Grand Central Terminal to generate more income. The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission ruled that the company could not go forward with the plan. This was because it would alter the existing landmark<\/a> (Grand Central) too much.<\/p>\r\n

Penn Central argued that this constituted a taking<\/a> for which it should be compensated. The court disagreed, stating that a regulatory taking occurs only when the current use of the property is damaged.<\/p>\r\n

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

In this case, the city authorized the use of eminent domain to revitalize its distressed economy<\/a>. The city council allowed a private nonprofit to exercise eminent domain in the city’s name. Although eminent domain had not allowed private property to be transferred to another private party, the court allowed this transfer. This transfer was part of a development plan designed to benefit the public<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

Commentators argue that the Kelo<\/i> decision gave the government almost limitless eminent domain powers. The government can transfer private property to a private party under the general justification of \u201ceconomic development." In response, many state legislatures have limited their own powers of eminent domain<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n

PennEast Pipeline Co. LLC v. New Jersey (2021)<\/b><\/h3>\r\n

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of a pipeline company<\/a> to use eminent domain powers granted under the Natural Gas Act. The company seized state-owned lands for private development. The ruling reaffirmed that states can\u2019t preemptively acquire land in order to block interstate pipeline projects. New Jersey had claimed that the 11th Amendment<\/a> prevented the pipeline company from condemning land owned by the state or held in conservation easements.<\/p>\r\n

Eminent Domain Today<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

Government use of eminent domain remains unpopular, and the transfer of private property by private companies is widely contested by the public. Many such cases involve fossil-fuel energy companies and pipeline projects.<\/p>\r\n

Take, for example, Puntenney v. Iowa Utilities Board<\/i><\/a> (2019). Landowners, landowner associations, and the Sierra Club charged that a private pipeline company violated state and federal law in using eminent domain. Further, they said the Iowa Utilities Board should not have the authority to define what is a "public convenience and necessity." The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed.<\/p>\r\n

The courts are also seeing more cases involving claims of regulatory takings. In these cases, government regulations interfere with a landowner’s property rights so much that the owners claim they are deprived of any economic benefit of their land. Environmental regulations<\/a> are often blamed.<\/p>\r\n

Get Help Defending Your Property From Eminent Domain<\/b><\/h2>\r\n

While it\u2019s difficult to prevent an eminent domain taking, there are cases where the government has overreached or failed to pay just compensation. An experienced attorney can fight the taking of your property. They can help you get just compensation for your loss. Contact an eminent domain lawyer<\/a> in your area.<\/p>\r\n

\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n