Purchase Solution

Evolution of Takings Clause

Not what you're looking for?

Ask Custom Question

I need help in discussing the evolution of the takings clause using detailed and thorough discussion of relevant and important case law. I need a minimum of three cases to support my essay.

Purchase this Solution
Solution Summary

The following posting discusses the evolution of the takings clause using a detailed and thorough discussion of relevant and important case law.

Solution Preview

The "Takings Clause" of the U.S. Constitution is basically a statement that dictates no taking of private property by the government for public use unless just compensation is given. The evolution of this clause has taken on a prominent role in constitutional jurisprudence as a result of several decisions over the past 25 years. The initial clause was placed in the original Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the first application of the clause was applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The case that the Takings Clause was applied to was Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). The use of the clause toward the states would not produce incorporation into state and local government actions until over 25 years later when another landmark case Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon set the precedent for using the Takings Clause in state and local government actions.

Pennsylvania v. Mahon involved taking that occurred as a result of a coal company that alleged the land was taken under regulations enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature aimed at ...

Solution provided by:
Raushaun Rigsby, MSc
Education
  • Associates of Arts , Lone Star Community College
  • Bachelor of Science , Sam Houston State University
  • Masters of Science, Kaplan University
  • Masters of Science , Kaplan University
Recent Feedback
  • "Thank you however I have two questions: 1.) where in this passage is the actual problem statement? 2.) if you used references can you please provide them? This is great work and I am so grateful. "
  • "Thank you very much"
  • "excellent analysis"
  • "graet job very helpful"
  • "Thank you, excellent and very detailed."
Purchase this Solution
Free BrainMass Quizzes
Evidence

Do you know your evidence objections? Find out with this quiz!

Title VII

This Quiz pertains to the spectrum of Human Rights through Title VII

Contract Requirments

How much do you know about the legal requirements for a contract? Find out with this quiz!

Constitutional Law Rights

How much do you know about Constitutional Law Rights? Find out with this quiz!

Criminal Defenses Review

Test your knowledge of the basics of criminal law and defenses with this quiz.

View More Free Quizzes
Related BrainMass Solutions

  • The Takings Clause

    558490 The Takings Clause Discuss the evolution of the takings clause, including an analysis of regulatory takings, eminent domain and inverse condemnation.

  • Property and Consumer Law

    None of these establishments was identified as a place designated for 'public use'. Therefore, the city did violate the takings clause. I would disagree that the city did not violate the takings clause.

  • This posting discusses the Kelo v City of New London case

    I do not agree with the takings clause as it is currently stated. In my opinion, there should be stricter regulations on the taking of property.

  • Compensation and Power of Eminent Domain

    This clause is also known as the "Takings" Clause, because the government can "take" the property.

  • US Law

    The Federal government regulates private business based largely on authority found in which provision of the Constitution? A. Supremacy Clause B. Takings Clause C. Commerce Clause D.

  • Takings Clause

    of the takings clause using detailed and thorough discussion of relevant and important case law.

  • Law and Ethics: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

    The dissenting judge did not want to damage the Takings Clause jurisprudence. The judge feared that the Court's new policies will have effects far beyond the "narrow" scope of the case under examination.

  • Eminent Domain and the Kelo v. City of New London Case

    The Court ruled that the City of London taking of private property and selling it to a private development corporation qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

  • Ethics and the Law

    The economic growth benefit that this action would provide, would qualify this action by the city in obtaining the property as being for public use, which will subsequently qualify this action as legally supported by the ramifications of the takings clause

View More Related Solutions