Kelo v. City of New London
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London an entity of type: Thing
凯洛诉新伦敦市案（英語：Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al.）， U.S. 469 (2005)，是美国最高法院判决的一起关于政府是否可以经济发展为理由征用私有财产并转移到另一个私有实体。原告凯洛为被征地的居民代表，被告则是康涅狄格州新伦敦市市政当局。2005年6月23日，美国最高法院对这起案子所作的最新判决引来了各方广泛关注。这起涉及土地“有偿征收”的案子，按照美高院最新判决，地方市政当局有权强行征收私有土地用于商业开发——只要这种开发属于“公共使用”范畴。高院裁定“该市对于被征地的规划部署合乎‘公共使用’，且在‘第五条修正案’条款的含义之内”。因此，此案同时也引发了关于“第五条修正案”该怎么实现、怎么解释、怎么运用的新一轮讨论。
rdf:langString
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Kelo v. City of New London
rdf:langString
凯洛诉新伦敦市案
rdf:langString
Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
xsd:float
41.34408187866211
xsd:float
-72.09722137451172
xsd:integer
2100546
xsd:integer
1121678580
rdf:langString
Rehearing denied, 126 S. Ct. 24
xsd:integer
4
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
rdf:langString
Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
469
xsd:integer
545
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-22
xsd:integer
2005
rdf:langString
Kelo v. City of New London,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-23
xsd:integer
2005
rdf:langString
Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, Connecticut, et al.
rdf:langString
The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut decision affirmed.
rdf:langString
Kelo v. New London
xsd:string
41.344082 -72.09722
rdf:langString
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In the case, plaintiff Susette Kelo sued the city of New London, Connecticut, for violating her civil rights after the city tried to acquire her house's property through eminent domain so that the land could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan". Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the five-justice majority that the city's use of eminent domain was permissible under the Takings Clause, because the general benefits the community would enjoy from economic growth qualified as "public use". After the Court's decision, the city allowed a private developer to proceed with its plans; however, the developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the project, and the contested land remained an undeveloped empty lot.
rdf:langString
凯洛诉新伦敦市案（英語：Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al.）， U.S. 469 (2005)，是美国最高法院判决的一起关于政府是否可以经济发展为理由征用私有财产并转移到另一个私有实体。原告凯洛为被征地的居民代表，被告则是康涅狄格州新伦敦市市政当局。2005年6月23日，美国最高法院对这起案子所作的最新判决引来了各方广泛关注。这起涉及土地“有偿征收”的案子，按照美高院最新判决，地方市政当局有权强行征收私有土地用于商业开发——只要这种开发属于“公共使用”范畴。高院裁定“该市对于被征地的规划部署合乎‘公共使用’，且在‘第五条修正案’条款的含义之内”。因此，此案同时也引发了关于“第五条修正案”该怎么实现、怎么解释、怎么运用的新一轮讨论。
rdf:langString
Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
62608
<Geometry>
POINT(-72.097221374512 41.344081878662)
