Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
How closely will courts scrutinize exercises of the eminent domain power? Until recently, courts have been quite deferential when entities clothed with eminent domain power have determined that private property is necessary for public use. Two recent decisions, however, suggest that there are limits to that deference.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, provides that "[p]rivate property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation." At the federal level, the United States Supreme Court has transformed the "public use" requirement into a "public purpose" requirement; so long as the condemnor can conjure up a public purpose for the taking, the condemnor does not have to demonstrate that the property will be open to the public. The Court had abandoned any requirement that the condemnor show use the public as early as 1906 in Strickley v. Bay Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, and the Court reaffirmed that position in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, where it sustained a taking for economic development purposes. In Kelo, Justice Stevens also indicated that the Court would defer to the condemning authority on another issue: what land does the condemnor need to accomplish the public purpose.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.