Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Kelo v. New London. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 10 page research paper that summarizes and analyzes the case if Kelo v. The City of New London. The writer summarizes the facts of the face, its history in the courts, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. The writer also discussing Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion and the impact of this case on the legal system, along with the writer’s opinion on the ruling. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
10 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khkelo.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
citys tax base and revitalize the city, which was economically distressed by renovating its downtown and waterfront areas (Stevens, 2005). The citys developers were successful at purchasing much of the
property needed for this project from property owners who were willing to sell, but the city implemented its "power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property" from
those property owners who were not willing to sell. One of these homeowners was Susette Kelo who had lived in area since 1997. Kelo had made extensive improvements to her
home and prized its location and waterfront view. Likewise, petitioner Wilhelmina Dery had strong emotional connections with her property. Dery was born in her home in 1918 and lived there
her entire life. The nine petitioners owned fifteen property, which were located in parcels 3 and 11 of the development plan. In ten cases, the petitioners were currently living in
a home on the property in question and the other five petitioners held their properties as investments. There was no allegation that any of these properties were actually blighted or
in poor condition, "rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area" (Stevens, 2005). In December of 2000, the petitioners took their case
before the New London Superior Court, asserting that the "taking of their properties would violate the public use restriction in the Fifth Amendment" (Stevens, 2005). The Superior Court granted a
"permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the properties located in parcel 4A," but denied relief to the petitioners with properties in parcel 3 (Stevens, 2005). The case then went
before the Supreme Court of Connecticut, which held, over a dissent, that all of the actions taken by the City for the redevelopment plan were valid. The case then came
...