[20050819]RS22227_产权“收入”:奥康纳法官的意见.pdf

上传人:任我行 文档编号:18337 上传时间:2022-06-24 发布时间:2005-08-19 格式:PDF 页数:7 大小:55.76KB
下载 相关 举报
[20050819]RS22227_产权“收入”:奥康纳法官的意见.pdf_第1页
第1页 / 共7页
[20050819]RS22227_产权“收入”:奥康纳法官的意见.pdf_第2页
第2页 / 共7页
[20050819]RS22227_产权“收入”:奥康纳法官的意见.pdf_第3页
第3页 / 共7页
[20050819]RS22227_产权“收入”:奥康纳法官的意见.pdf_第4页
第4页 / 共7页
[20050819]RS22227_产权“收入”:奥康纳法官的意见.pdf_第5页
第5页 / 共7页
点击查看更多>>
资源描述

1、1 The Takings Clause states: Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without justcompensation.”2 Both “takings cases” and “direct condemnation” cases are premised on the governments powerof eminent domain. The difference between the two is that a takings case is brought by theproperty ow

2、ner, who argues that a government action has effectively taken his property byeminent domain, as by excessive regulation, even though the government has not formallyinvoked the power. By contrast, a direct condemnation suit is brought by the government andexpressly acknowledges that the government i

3、s invoking eminent domain to take property andmust compensate. Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS22227August 19, 2005Property Rights “Takings”: JusticeOConnors Opinionsname redactedLegislative AttorneyAmerican Law Di

4、visionSummaryWhen Justice OConnor ascended to the Supreme Court, expectations were that shewould adhere to the conservative line and generally uphold the property rights positionover the governments in Fifth Amendment “takings” cases. This did not happen.Instead, in this area as well as others, she

展开阅读全文
相关资源
猜你喜欢
相关搜索
资源标签

当前位置:首页 > 法规条令 > CRS 美国国会研究处报告