恢复征用权中的必要性

IF 0.6 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Pub Date : 2009-05-22 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.1409383
R. Bird
{"title":"恢复征用权中的必要性","authors":"R. Bird","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1409383","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The necessity doctrine states that a condemnor may only take property via eminent domain that is necessary for furthering a proposed public use. With the advent of the Kelo v. City of New London decision and its deferential treatment of public use, necessity remains one of the few existing checks on government discretion in eminent domain. This article proposes a modest revival of the dormant necessity doctrine that preserves government discretion while curbing the reckless exercise of eminent domain.","PeriodicalId":46083,"journal":{"name":"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2009-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain\",\"authors\":\"R. Bird\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1409383\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The necessity doctrine states that a condemnor may only take property via eminent domain that is necessary for furthering a proposed public use. With the advent of the Kelo v. City of New London decision and its deferential treatment of public use, necessity remains one of the few existing checks on government discretion in eminent domain. This article proposes a modest revival of the dormant necessity doctrine that preserves government discretion while curbing the reckless exercise of eminent domain.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46083,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1409383\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1409383","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

必要性原则指出,谴责者只能通过征用权取得财产,这是促进拟议的公共使用所必需的。随着“凯洛诉新伦敦市”案的判决及其对公共用途的尊重,必要性仍然是对征用权中政府自由裁量权的少数现有制约之一。本文建议适度地复兴休眠的必要性原则,该原则保留政府的自由裁量权,同时遏制鲁莽地行使征用权。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reviving Necessity in Eminent Domain
The necessity doctrine states that a condemnor may only take property via eminent domain that is necessary for furthering a proposed public use. With the advent of the Kelo v. City of New London decision and its deferential treatment of public use, necessity remains one of the few existing checks on government discretion in eminent domain. This article proposes a modest revival of the dormant necessity doctrine that preserves government discretion while curbing the reckless exercise of eminent domain.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc., an organization of Harvard Law School students. The Journal is one of the most widely circulated student-edited law reviews and the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship. The late Stephen Eberhard and former Senator and Secretary of Energy E. Spencer Abraham founded the journal twenty-eight years ago and many journal alumni have risen to prominent legal positions in the government and at the nation’s top law firms.
期刊最新文献
The Presumption of Constitutionality Immigration, Freedom, and the Constitution Business Transactions and President Trump's 'Emoluments' Problem Free Expression on Campus: Mitigating the Costs of Contentious Speakers Revitalizing the Clemency Process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1