July 1st, 2006 — In Articles
“Compensation for Loss of Visibility to and View from the Owner’s Property” by James L. Thompson (Maryland)
The general law covering this issue (related to inverse condemnation) varies from state to state. The authors cite numerous case examples in this 2006 article, including their current litigation, and organize the disparities into three categories: legal principles, collateral factors and practice tips.
“Recent Developments in Public Use and Pretext in Eminent Domain” by Robert H. Thomas (Hawaii)
The courts response to the increasing number of landowners challenging government condemnation is examined in this 2005 article. The issue of pretext is illustrated by litigation in Hawaii involving a private property owner’s claim that the county had delegated its power of eminent domain to a developer.
“The Public Use Requirement in Eminent Domain Law” by Keith M. Babcock and Brady R. Thomas (South Carolina)
The elasticity of South Carolina’s legal interpretation of public use is the focus of this article. The South Carolina cases cited are from Jasper County and the cities of Charleston and Columbia. The landmark Kelo v. City of New London case is discussed, as well as select cases from Michigan and Hawaii.