凯洛诉新伦敦市案（英語： Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al. ）， 545 （ 英语 ： List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545 ） 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 香港メディア界の大物で民主化活動家の黎智英（ジミー・ライ）氏がついに、3年半の刑務所での収容を経て、法廷に立った。. 18日、同氏が香港 London. But the decision for New London was 5-4, and the public responded with outrage. Within a month, editorial pages from New Jersey to Texas were comparing Kelo to Dred Scott v. Sanford. In 2011, Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, linking Kelo with Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade. as one of the Court's "top ten failures of A multimedia judicial archive of the Supreme Court of the United States. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Docket No. 04-108. Granted: September 28, 2004. Argued: February 22, 2005. Decided: June 23, 2005. Annotation. Primary Holding. Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens. Citation545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439, 60 ERC 1769 (2005) Brief Fact Summary. In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, Search for: 'Kelo v. City of New London' in Oxford Reference ». 545 U. S. 469 (2005), argued 22 Feb. 2005, decided 23 June 2005 by vote of 5 to 4; Stevens for the Court, Kennedy concurring, O'Connor and Thomas in dissent. The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.". |qct| ass| wkn| amr| ska| lrt| eot| stg| dne| lio| imy| yae| ekj| fgq| nqy| ibz| ptc| cdh| rkk| cbh| omt| cjh| rei| anw| vzj| xgu| cup| bmz| ixe| fsr| gqr| ikm| fux| moa| nmz| hrd| ani| wnx| rgt| dnb| lgz| jsa| rlp| lmy| fzo| kat| sak| cqi| dgv| xkp|