2007
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.902926
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nothing 'Errant' About it: The Berman and Midkiff Conference Notes and How the Supreme Court Got to Kelo With its Eyes Wide Open

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…O'Connor J's explanation for arriving at a decision, which appeared to contradict Her Honour's earlier position, has been criticised as unconvincing (Barros 2007). A more convincing argument may have been that, with the benefit of hindsight, the decisions in Midkiff and Berman wrongly interpreted the 'public use' requirement broadly, rather than the decision being 'errant' (Barros 2007).…”
Section: Kelo V City Of New London 545 Us 469 (2005)mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…O'Connor J's explanation for arriving at a decision, which appeared to contradict Her Honour's earlier position, has been criticised as unconvincing (Barros 2007). A more convincing argument may have been that, with the benefit of hindsight, the decisions in Midkiff and Berman wrongly interpreted the 'public use' requirement broadly, rather than the decision being 'errant' (Barros 2007).…”
Section: Kelo V City Of New London 545 Us 469 (2005)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By way of contrast, the dissenting judges, O'Connor and Thomas J disagreed that the acquisitions were valid. O'Connor J specifically rejected Her Honour's own earlier decision in Midkiff concluding that the broad language of the decision was "errant" (Kelo cited in Barros 2007). Her Honour upheld the limitation on compulsory acquisition powers for private-to-private transfers to circumstances where it is necessary to remove blight or to correct "widespread social injustice" (Kelo cited in Rutkow 2006).…”
Section: Kelo V City Of New London 545 Us 469 (2005)mentioning
confidence: 99%