Public Use | Kelo

Subscribe to Public Use | Kelo via RSS

A “SLAPP suit” is a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” and many states have statutes designed to thwart retaliatory lawsuits to protect the public’s willingness to exercise First Amendment rights.  For example, California’s statute defines SLAPP suits as:

lawsuits brought primarily to chill the valid exercise of the constitutional rights of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances.

Cal. Code. Civ. Proc. § 425.16 (emphasis added).  Hawaii’s anti-SLAPP statute is codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 634F, and defines a SLAPP suit somewhat differently than California:

“SLAPP”means a strategic lawsuit against public participation and refers to alawsuit that lacks substantial justification or is interposed for delayor harassment and that is solely based on the party’s public participation before a governmental body.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 634F-1 (emphasis added).

In City of Riverside v. Stansbury, Nos. E040125 & E040973 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2007), the…

Continue Reading ▪ SLAPP Suits, Ballot Measures, and Curbing Eminent Domain Abuse

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York heard oral arguments in Goldstein v. Pataki, an appeal challenging the “Atlantic Yards” redevelopment in Brooklyn. At issue in the appeal is whether the plaintiffs had properly alleged that the effort to take their property by eminent domain was for a private purpose.

The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), meaning that the facts alleged in the complaint, taken in the light most favorably to the property owners, did not sufficiently plead a cause of action for private benefit under Kelo. Recall in that case, the US Supreme Court held that under the Public Use Clause, courts generally defer to legislative determinations that property is needed for public use, but that if a property owner makes sufficient allegations that the taking is instead for a…

Continue Reading ▪ Pleading Kelo

The US Supreme Court has denied review to MiPro Homes, L.L.C. v. Mount Laurel Township (No. 06-1345) (docket listing here).  The question the Court was asked to review was:

Whetherthe Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibitsa municipality from taking private property for “public use” when themunicipality’s public use determination is ad hoc, pretextual, and notpart of a comprehensive planning process.

A summary of the case, including the petition and the decisions of the New Jersey courts is posted here.

Also denied was McNamara v. City of Rittman (No. 06-1481) (docket listing here), a petition asking the court to reconsider the ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), which requires a property owner to utilize available state compensation remedies prior to suing in federal court for a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision Continue Reading ▪ Post-Kelo Cert. Petition (MiPro) Denied