Law Review Note Topic (I Need Some Ideas)

[WordWhiz]

Ever read theagitator.com? Radley Balko has written extensively on the increase in paramilitary raids. Probably been a fair amount written about this in wake of the Hudson case, but I imagine some good issues still exist.

[iron81]

Another idea I had was asbestos litigation. Currently, dozens of companies are being forced into bankruptcy, many of them only tangentially related to asbestos. I'm not sure what angle you might take, but but maybe something like a public policy case for dismissing future suits.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
do it on kelo and how the homeowners could have won the case if they would have argued that they were unfairly compensated, rather than that the gov couldn't take their property.

I mean, it's easy for gov to take property at 20 cents on the dollar, it's much harder for them to take it when they have to pay 200 cents on the dollar (future use can increase property values).

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are speaking rhetorically here and not the specifics of Kelo. It is highly doubtful that they wouldnt have raised just compensation as an issue if the offers were signficantly undervalued. Given the status of New London at the time the property values were so depressed that market value (or market value plus a premium) would probably have been offered just to avoid the litigation costs.

If your parenthetical is meant to imply that a holdout owner should be compensated for increases in market value due solely to economic gains from the project the land is being seized for, you are incorrect both legally (SCOTUS) and ethically (imho).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume you are speaking rhetorically here and not the specifics of Kelo.

[/ QUOTE ]

my understanding is that in the kelo case it was argued that the gov overstepped their authority by using eminent domain for a private development rather than a public works like a road or bridge, and that just compensation was never an issue.

[Copernicus]

Yes, but you said that the plaintiffs "could" have prevailed if unjust compensation was claimed. I was asking whether you have facts that the compensation offered was unjust, or it was just a rhetorical "could have". I was also pointing out that in the absence of those facts, I think it highly unlikely that the compensation offered was unjust or it would have been raised as an issue and given the economic distress in New London.

[iron81]

I think Copernicus is right. I think its settled that just compensation = fair market value of the property in the absence of the taking. Actually, landowners can usually negotiate a pretty good premium on their property if they settle without taking it to court.

Noah, if you don't get what you need here, you might try your luck in The Lounge.

[Copernicus]

It may be too hot a topic, but any of the issues surrounding Jack McClellan would be pretty interesting:

Can he constituionally be banned from being within 30 feet of children?

Can he be restricted from taking pictures of children and posting them on a website without identification or location? With location only?

If his site isn't illegal does he have a cause of action against companies that refuse to host his site if they host other controversial sites?

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I was asking whether you have facts that the compensation offered was unjust,

[/ QUOTE ]

i think they were forced to take below market value, but I'm not gonna look it up, but pretty sure it was shady.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was asking whether you have facts that the compensation offered was unjust,

[/ QUOTE ]

i think they were forced to take below market value, but I'm not gonna look it up, but pretty sure it was shady.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, so basically, you dont know wtf you're talking about. You should have left it as a rhetorical.