In Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the court held that?
A. ?eminent domain was unconstitutional because some of the benefits went to private individuals.
B. ?public purpose was narrowly defined and eminent domain was unconstitutional because the property would not be put to public use.
C. ?the taking of Kelo's property was appropriate under the city's eminent domain power because the development plan was for a public purpose.
D. ?it was unconstitutional for a state to allow the power of eminent domain to be used to satisfy a development plan.
Answer: C
You might also like to view...
Law enforcement personnel may detain a person as a material witness under which of the following circumstances?
A) An affidavit is filed in the case stating that the person’s testimony may be material to the criminal proceeding. B) It may be impractical to secure the witness’ presence by subpoena. C) The witness is a foreign national D) The witness is a terror suspect. E) A and B
Are official reporters paid by a salary?
What will be an ideal response?
When has a party exhausted administrative remedies?
What will be an ideal response?
If you wanted to do Westlaw search to find every case where the word police appears within three words of the word force your search would look like: ________
Fill in the blank(s) with correct word