Free Essay

Kelo Et Al. V. City of New London Et Al.

In: Social Issues

Submitted By wyj0521
Words 1569
Pages 7
I. KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
II. CITATION: 545 U.S. 469 (2005)

III. FACTS:
The city of New London, Connecticut, after the closing of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, reactivated the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a non-profit entity for land development in the city, specifically the Fort Trumbull area vacated by the U.S. Navy.
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed an interest in locating a research and production facility in the area. The city advised the NLDC to move forward with its plans. Over 90 acres of property were purchased and acquired through eminent domain for the development of residential housing, recreational, marina, retail and industrial parcels. Of the 90 acres, thirty-two of the acres came from Fort Trumbull and the remainder from private owners. All private owners, except 15, sold to the city for the project. The remaining 15 held out not for money, but for emotional and sentimental reasons. The Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled in favor of the taking of the private property under eminent domain. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and grouped all 15 cases in one appeal.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES:
Is the use of eminent domain to acquire property by the government and redirect for private use repugnant to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which reads “…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”? Is the taking of property from A and giving it to B for economic development a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment?

V. COURT DECISION:
In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Connecticut Supreme. Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer were in majority with Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting.

VI. OPINION AND REASONING OF THE COURT: (by Justice Stevens)
The majority opinion and decision of the court was delivered by Justice Stevens. The majority opinion was primarily based on two previous court rulings, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and Berman v. Parker, 346 U.S. 26 (1954). In both cases the local government took property through emminent domain and redistributed it to private entitites for development and urban renewal.
The majority opinion held that the New London land in question is part of a “carefully considered” development plan. The opinion conceded that, “The sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation.” However, because the taking is part of a development plan and not just an arbitrary re-distribution of property, this makes it acceptable. The lower courts had found that there was no evidence of illegitimate purpose in this case, that the taking of the property was not for the sole benefit of one person. And while the land is not freely accessible to all, the New London project sufficiently satisfies the “public use” requirement of the emminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment. The duty of the court is to determine if the “public use” requirement is being met. The majority quoted Justice Douglas in the Berman v. Parker case, stating, “We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive.”
The duty of the court is not to look at each individual building, but at the project as a whole and determine if it meets the “public use” guideline. Individual property is the concern of the local legislature which is in a better position to review each property and its relation to the project as a whole.

VII. CONCURRING OPINION (delivered by Justice Kennedy)
Justice Kennedy called for a rational-basis review eminent domain cases to determine if one particular party will benefit greatly over others. Such a review was outlined in both the Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman cases. However, in the New London case, the majority of the parties were unknown and no one party could unfairly benefit from the transaction. Pfizer was not benefitting from the development as the project was already conceived and being executed when Pfizer expressed an interest in locating there. The land transfers were part of a comprehensive plan that was already in the works, and no one group was favored in the transaction.

VIII. DISSENTING OPINION (delivered by Justice O’Connor, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia)
Justice O’Connor gave a very strong dissent. Referring to the words of Justice Chase in 1798 who wrote:
“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legilative authority…A law that takes property from A and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice for the people to entrust a Legislature with such power; and, therefore it cannot be presumes that they have done it.” Calder v. Bull 3 Dall.386,388 (1798)
Justice O’Connor wrote, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so long as it might be upgraded.”
Justice O’Connor proposes a limited Constitutionalist view of eminent domain holding that property taken under the Fifth Amendment must be strictly for public use and in no way should benefit any single or limited group of people. The taking of property must be for the good of all people equally.
Justice O’Connor laid out three primary areas where emminent domain has come into play. First, to acquire land for roads, a hospital, or a military base. The second to acquire land such as a railroad, public utility, and public stadium. The third is for certain private enterprises such as in the Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman cases. In these two cases there were extenuating circumstances. In Berman, the area was so blighted as to be a health hazard. In Hawaii Housing Authority, the majority of the land was in the hands of so few people, it was “skewing” the state’s residential fee simple market. In both cases the public good was being served without unduly benefiting a select group of individuals.
O’Connor said it is the role of the court to determine whether transfers are solely for the benefit of a private transferee. Also, eminent domain is to upgrade and not downgrade property. She agreed that the real power of eminent domain should rest with local and state legislature, but it should be done with a watchful eye by the courts because “the beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process.” Justice O’Connor concluded that the taking of the New London property was unconstitutional and that the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

IX. SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE THOMAS
Justice Thomas said that the “public use” clause of the Fifth Amendment has been erased from our Constitution. The “public use” clause along with the “just compensation” clause in the Fifth Amendment are an express limit on the government’s power of eminent domain.
He pointed out that “public use” is very different from “general welfare” used elsewhere in the Constitution. These takings fall more in line with “general welfare” than “public use”. Justice Thomas looks on the “takings” clause as not a grant of power but a prohibition, and that takings should only be done when absolutely necessary.
Justice Thomas referred back to the early grist mill laws as the origin for the “takings” clause. Such laws gave compensation to landowners whose land was flooded by water powered grist mills. The taking later moved to public roads, ferries, canals, railways, and parks, all within the scope of “public use.” The current interpretation of “public use” has deviated from its natural reading to two lines of cases. The first are those that adopt the “public purpose” interpretation, and the second are those that defer to the legislature judgment regarding valid public purpose.
Justice Thomas criticized the “actual use tests” that were laid out in both the Hawaii Housing Authority and Berman cases. Once applied there is no limit on what constitutes “public use.” He argued that the results of the present decision are easy to predict. The neighborhoods of the less affluent and less influential of society will be the target of hastily drawn revitalization programs and the takings will be the rewards of the few rather than the public good. He urged the Supreme Court to return to the original intent envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, that is to restrain and prohibit the arbitrary taking of property.
X. PERSONAL OPINION BY STUDENT
I agree with the dissenters in this case. The Constitution is clear that the government should not take land unnecessarily, and moreover for the benefit of private individuals. This harkens back as far as the original Magna Charta. The sovereign shall not disposess people from their land or property. The path that this leads down is one where the most influential in our society can take whatever thety like with the blessings of the court under the guise of “public use.” It is easy to see from the cases cited and the dates, that the more recent the case, the more liberal the intrepretation of “public use.”…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Bus Lawsuit Review Alvin Kaltman, Et Al. V. All American Pest Control

...Local Lawsuit By Bryan McDaniels Professor Jeffery McLoud Business Law 1 November 4, 2012 Alvin Kaltman, ET AL. v. All American Pest Control, Inc., ET AL. is a case from the Circuit Court of Fairfax County Virginia which was brought about by a homeowner Alvin and Gwendolyn Kaltman with a complaint against a pest control company All American Pest Control. In this paper you will learn what actions an agent of All American Pest Control did that lead to this lawsuit. What All American Pest Control management could have done to prevent this lawsuit. The ethical considerations reflected in the laws applicable to this case. Discuss which sources of law would be most relevant in this case and how All American Pest Control management could leverage knowledge of those sources to prevent similar instances in the future. Then provide recommendation of alternate resolutions that could have been pursued. " In 1996, the Kaltmans hired All American Pest Control, Inc. (“AAPC”) to treat and prevent pest infestation at their home on a quarterly basis. On October 23, 2006, All American Pest Control employee Patric J. Harrison performed the Kaltmans’ quarterly pest control treatment. At the time, Harrison was not a licensed pesticide technician in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Three days before treating the Kaltmans’ home, Harrison treated a commercial establishment with Orthene pesticide. After applying Orthene at that business, Harrison “failed to thoroughly clean his......

Words: 1577 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Compare and Contrast Cohen’s Study of Disorderly Behaviour with That of Hall Et Al.

...Compare and contrast Cohen’s study of disorderly behaviour with that of Hall et al. This essay will explore the construction of disorder in society and the role of the media in shaping public opinions about social disorder. It will examine the theories of Stanley Cohen and Hall et al. and will identify the different approaches and key research issues concerning disorderly behaviour. The essay will show how the media constructs and defines antisocial behaviour through the portrayal of folk devils which creates moral panic. The concept of folk devils and moral panic was explored by Stanley Cohen (1973) in his case study of mods and rockers of the 1960’s. The Mods and Rockers were two opposing British youth gangs that engaged in fighting and vandalism at seaside towns in the 1960’s.Cohen’s research focused on how this the media’s portrayal of events provoked a mood of public fear and outrage throughout society, labelling the two groups as folk devils. Folk devils have been depicted as mindless, evil and deviant beings with their behaviour completely different to that of normal people. These deviants have been blamed for all the wrongs in society and have been punished brutally. This characterisation has been central to Cohen’s theory with the role of the media inciting moral panics with the dramatization and construction of Folk devils. (Kelly and Toynbee, 2009, p370) Stanley Cohen, Suggests the UK media’s representation of the antisocial behaviour of the British youths......

Words: 1594 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Richard Wallace Grube Et Al. V. Bethlehem Area School District

...Abstract Richard Grube, an athletically inclined senior at Freedom High School in the Bethlehem Area School District, played football his freshman, sophomore, and junior years. Prior to the start of the football season in his senior year, the district claimed Richard was ineligible to play on the basis that Richard only had one kidney. Richard and his family filed a preliminary injunction against the school district claiming the district violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) According to the United States Department of Education (2011), Section 504 states that, “no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in…any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance”. As a result, the court ruled in favor of Richard Grube. Case and Law Review Richard Wallace Grube et al. v. Bethlehem Area School District Legal Research In 1982, Richard Grube, a senior at Freedom High School was declared ineligible to play football because he only had one kidney. Richard and his family filed a preliminary injunction based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that, no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the......

Words: 1581 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Kelo V. New London

...Kеlo v. Cіty of Nеw London Abstract Thе town of Nеw London іs sеаtеd аt thе junctіon of thе Thаmеs Rіvеr аnd thе Long Islаnd Sound іn southеаstеrn Connеctіcut. Dеcаdеs of fіnаncіаl down turn dіrеctеd а stаtе burеаu іn 1990 to dеsіgnаtе thе Cіty а “dіstrеssеd munіcіpаlіty.” In 1996, thе Fеdеrаl Govеrnmеnt shut thе Nаvаl Undеrsеа Wаrfаrе Cеntеr, whіch hаd bееn еstаblіshеd іn thе Fort Trumbull locаlіty of thе Cіty аnd hаd еngаgеd ovеr 1,500 pеoplе. In 1998, thе Cіty’s job loss rаtе wаs аlmost twіcе thаt of thе Stаtе аnd іts communіty of just undеr 24,000 іnhаbіtаnts wаs аt іts smаllеst sіncе 1920. Thеsе sіtuаtіon provokеd stаtе аnd locаlіzеd аgеnts to goаl Nеw London, аnd еspеcіаlly іts Fort Trumbull locаlіty, for fіnаncіаl rеvіtаlіzаtіon. To thіs еnd, rеspondеnt Nеw London Dеvеlopmеnt Corporаtіon (NLDC), а pеrsonаl nonprofіt еntіty еstаblіshеd somе yеаrs prеvіous to аіd thе Cіty іn dеsіgnіng fіnаncіаl dеvеlopmеnt, wаs rеаctіvаtеd. In Jаnuаry 1998, thе Stаtе аuthorіzеd а $5.35 mіllіon bond topіc to support thе NLDC’s dеsіgnіng undеrtаkіngs аnd а $10 mіllіon bond topіc іn thе dіrеctіon of thе crеаtіon of а Fort Trumbull Stаtе Pаrk. In Fеbruаry, thе phаrmаcеutіcаl busіnеss Pfіzеr Inc. broаdcаst thаt іt would construct а $300 mіllіon study fаcіlіty on а locаtіon dіrеctly аdjаcеnt to Fort Trumbull; locаlіzеd plаnnеrs wаntеd thаt Pfіzеr would drаw nеw еntеrprіsе to thе locаlіty, thеrеby аssіstіng аs а cаtаlyst to thе аrеа’s rеjuvеnаtіon. Aftеr obtаіnіng prіmаry аccеptаncе from......

Words: 1875 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Kelo V. City of New London

...Eminent domain is described as the power of the government to take private property for public use. The “Taking’s Clause” is described in the United States Constitution as “..Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. In the case of Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, the city of New London did not violate the Taking’s Clause. It is stated in the case that the city purchased the property of 15 of the 24 owners. They were taking the property to build a research facility, a hotel and also stores and private residences. These are all for public use. Of course I can see how the homeowners would think that it was more for private use, the city of New London would be making profits from the sale of residential property and also from the building of the businesses. However they are for public use. Since the government had to take the landowners to court the government had to file suit to seek “condemnation” of the land. This is just stating that they are offering a just price for the land and awarding the title to the government. This was the case a few years back in the county I live in. I live in Crawford County, Ohio and the State of Ohio was working to rebuild a public highway. While they were offering large amounts of money to the land owners, a few of them tried to stand strong and not sell. Unfortunately they were forced to sell and then received less than the other landowners. I understand why they didn’t want to...

Words: 393 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Case Study: Delia V. E.M.A. Et Al

...Case Study: Delia v. E.M.A. et al Xxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx University of Maryland University College HCAD 650 Fall 2012 October 5, 2013 Case Study: Delia v. E.M.A. et al This paper reviews a case study of a medical malpractice suit that resulted in a claim against the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services for their practice of recovering settlements paid for medical expenses. Legal controversies with medical impact rarely reach the United States Supreme Court because such cases must go through several levels of hearings and appeals before even being considered by the Supreme Court. Medical issues must involve interpretation of the US Constitution or federal law, and at least four of the nine justices must agree to accept a case. The Supreme Court reviews only a small percentage of the several thousand cases submitted each year. Consequently, most medical controversies at law take place in state courts. Subject United States Supreme Court Case No. 12-98. Albert A. Delia, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services v. E.M.A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Daniel H. Johnson, et al. Later the case was changed to: No. 12-98. Aldona Wos, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. E.M.A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Daniel H. Johnson, et al. The purpose of the case was to resolve the conflict between the opinions of the 4th U. S. Court of Appeals in this case...

Words: 2010 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Toronto Marlboro Major Junior "A" Hockey Club Et Al. V. Tonelli Et Al.

...The standards adopted by the minority in the case of Toronto Marlboro Major Junior "A" Hockey Club et al. v. Tonelli et al. to “test” the minors contract were as follows: I ask whether a prudent and informed parent of a 17-year-old young man who wished to become a professional hockey player, having in mind the realities of the world around him, would approve of this contract. I believe he would. It is true that the contract in this case could have been more beneficial to the infant and the scale could have been tipped more in favour of the infant but that is of little import. It also may not be desirable that member teams of the O.H.A. Major Junior League should occupy such a preferred position as vehicles of entry to the ranks of professional hockey but that too is of little import. It was this specific contract that was available to the infant in this case. The choice was to accept it or go elsewhere and that fact must be given appropriate weight. I do not believe that it could be realistically said that it would have been in the best interest of Tonelli to go elsewhere. The dissent by Mr Justice Zuber; who felt the defendant had breached his contract, based his decision on this critical question; In September of 1974, was it in the beneficial interest of the 17- year-old John Tonelli to enter into this agreement with the Toronto Marlboros? Zuber came to the conclusion that this young man wished to be a professional hockey player and even though he had before him the......

Words: 691 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Sandifier Et Al

...Sandifer et al. v. United States Steel Corp., 678 F. 3d 590, is a United States Supreme Court case argued on November 4, 2013 and decided on January 27, 2014. The case was decided at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on May 8, 2012, prior to being held by the United States Supreme Court. The issue in Sandifer et al. v. United States Steel Corp. (2014) was whether workers should be compensated for time spent putting on and taking off safety gear, when the applicable collective bargaining agreement excludes time spent “changing clothes” from the compensable workday and that exclusion is permitted by section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Clifton Sandifer and a group of former and current steelworkers represented by United Steelworkers labor union sued United States Steel Corp. for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. United Steelworkers has had a collective bargaining agreement in place with U.S. Steel since 1947 which includes a stipulation that workers will not be paid for the time it takes to put on their safety gear before they start working or for the time it takes to remove their safety gear after they stop working. The Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to pay workers for these activities, but section 203(o) allows exceptions to payment for time spent “changing clothes”. The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision affirming the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2012 ruling. The Supreme Court held that...

Words: 397 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Nadel Et Al V Burger King Corp

...Carmelita Cain MGMT 520 Week 3 Assignment Nadel et al. v. Burger King Corp. & Emil, Inc. case 1. What court decided the case in the assignment? (2 points) COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY 2. According to the case, what must a party establish to prevail on a motion for summary judgment? (3 points) Emil moved for summary judgment, claiming that no genuine issue of material fact existed. BK also moved for summary judgment and pointed to evidence in the depositions that appellants knew the coffee was hot and that coffee was purchased and served as a hot beverage. It also contended under the circumstances that Evelyn's and Paul's actions were intervening, superseding causes precluding any actionable negligence on its part. 3. Briefly state the facts of this case, using the information found in the case in LexisNexis. (5 points) Christopher Nadel received second degree burns from coffee spilling on his right foot purchased at Burger King by his grandmother Evelyn Nadel. The Nadel’s brought suit against Burger King and franchise owner Emil, Inc, for product liability for a defectively designed product and for failure to warn of the dangers of handling a liquid served as hot as their coffee. The court granted both the Burger King owner and Burger King Corporation request for motion of summary of judgments. The Nadel’s appealed. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The summary judgment was wrongly granted on...

Words: 1465 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products Lp V. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Et Al., 647 F.3d 723 (2011)

...Case: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, et al., 647 F.3d 723 (2011) Facts: Georgia-Pacific has been selling its Quilted Northern brand toilet paper with “Quilted Diamond Design” since the early 1990s and has several trademarks, copyrights, and utility and design patents for the Quilted Diamond Design.In 2008, Kimberly-Clark redesigned two of its brands, Cottonelle Ultra and Scott Kimberly-Clark Professional, using a quilted pattern that Georgia-Pacific believes to be very similar to its Quilted Diamond Design. Georgia-Pacific claimed unfair competition and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. and filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kimberly-Clark filed a Motion for Summary Judgment claiming the design was functional and could not be protected. Virginia M. Kendall, the presiding judge, agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Kimberly-Clark. Issue: Can Georgia-Pacific hold utility patents, which detail functionality of design, and still have the protection of a registered trademark for its “Quilted Diamond Design”? Rule: Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (e)(5) - No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it consists of a mark which comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional. Analysis: The court looked...

Words: 461 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Case Brief/Kelo V. City of New London

...Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005). Facts: The city of New London, CT hired an independent agency to revitalized one of its waterfront properties. This revitalization was intended to create jobs and generate tax revenue for the city. To accomplish this, the independent agency was given authority to acquire the properties by buying them or eminent domain. The independent agency acquired majority of the properties, but some property owners refused to sell. The lower court affirmed both sides, but the Connecticut Supreme Court sided with the city of New London, CT; claiming that it was in line with the Fifth Amendment. The US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Connecticut Supreme Court stating that the city’s actions were justified and there is no way to undermine their decision on what was considered “public use.” Legal Issue: Whether the city of New London, CT has the right to consider private property that is not blighted for economical purposes under “public use?” Legal Holding: In a five to four decision, the US Supreme Court declared that economical benefits resulting from redevelopment is considered as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Judges: Majority Judges “Opinion of the Court” Stevens, Author of Opinion The city of New London, CT revitalization plan met the requirements as “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. “Concurring” Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg,...

Words: 655 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Reading Summary of Costa Et Al. (2014)

...Reading Summary of Costa et al. (2014) 1. Aim, Hypothesis and Prediction 1) What is the aim of the study?  According to psychologists, moral judgment seems to be driven by emotional and/or rational forces. The study aims to find out whether using a foreign language will affect these processes. 2) What is the hypothesis? Moral judgment in foreign languages will be less impacted by the emotional force. 3) What is the prediction? Moral judgment in foreign languages should be more rational and utilitarian than judgment in native languages. 2.     Method Experiment 1 1) Who are the participants?  317 native/foreign language speakers: 112 English/Spanish in the US, 80 Korean/English in Korea, 107 English/French in France, 18 Spanish or English/Hebrew in Israel 2) What was the procedure of the experiment? Participants were interviewed in native or foreign language ambiance. They read the scenario and picture of the footbridge version of trolley moral dilemma: pushing a man off the bridge to stop a coming train so as to save five people or not. They were then asked to indicate their decision. After that, they answered questions about their background, and did a foreign language comprehension check if they were assigned to a foreign language group. 3) What are the dependent and independent variables? DV: response to the dilemma (pushing or not pushing the man off the bridge) IV: language used in the interview Experiment 2 1) Who are...

Words: 375 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Response to Adler Et Al. “the Effects of Our Environment”

...Response to Adler et al. “The Effects of Our Environment” One important idea from “The Effects of Our Environment” is that “the main determinant of whether a student was actively and directly engaged in the process of classroom communication was that student’s seating position”, “the middle of the first row contained the students who interacted most, and as they more back and to the sides of the classroom, interaction decreased markedly.” I think the author‘s point is that students who sit in the middle of front rows are more actively interact in class than those who sit in the sides of back rows. In my experience, based on my 16 years student career, students who chose to sit in the middle of the first row and seats next to teachers are hardworking ones. They are willing to be engaged in the class and respond to the teacher at the first moment questions come up. By doing that, they can be more attracted by course contents, and they will gain more information from the class. What’s more, since front-row students can always leave good impressions to teachers, they can get more opportunities to communicate with teachers and participate in the classroom discussions. I always chose the middle of the second row when I was in college. My first course in college was “the Theory of Communications.” The lectures were given by our dean Mr. Chen, a very kind middle-aged professor. Unlike many other teachers, he barely managed classroom discipline because he believed that......

Words: 621 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Barbara J. O'Neil Et Al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, V. Crane Co. Et Al., Defendants and Respondents

...Michael Dumalag Professor Sabia Law & Econ – ECON 496 24 April 2012 BARBARA J. O'NEIL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CRANE CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. S177401 SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 53 Cal. 4th 335; 266 P.3d 987; 135 Cal. Rptr. 3d 288; 2012 Cal. LEXIS 3; CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P18,765 January 12, 2012, Filed INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs, family of the decedent plaintiff, Barbara J. O’Neil, filed a wrongful death complaint due to mesothelioma against the defendant manufacturers, Crane Co. et al., in concerns of valves and pumps manufactured for use on Navy warships. This particular claim raised strict liability claims and negligence claims in regards to asbestos exposure experienced by the decedent plaintiff released from external insulation and internal gaskets and packing. During World War II, defendants sold parts to the United States Navy for use in the steam propulsion systems of warships. These Steam systems were extremely hot and highly pressurized, requiring insulation. Navy specifications made use of asbestos insulation required at the time and products that did not conform to the use were rejected. However no evidence was presented that asbestos was needed in order for the valves to function properly also the defendant did not manufacture the asbestos packing gaskets used in its valves. Once parts were received by the navy, they were integrated into other components such as boilers and piping with asbestos-containing flange......

Words: 1470 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Kelo vs New London

...Kelo vs City of New London The Kelo vs City of New London case is one that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States with the issue involving eminent domain. Eminent domain is the transfer of property from one private party (Kelo) to a public party (City of New London), with proper compensation. The case brought to light the difference between what is considered to be public use and what is the best public purpose. Susette Kelo and fellow property owners owned property that was condemned by the city of New London to be used as further economic development. The properties were taken from the owners due to the fact a pharmaceutical company named Pfizer Inc, was planning to build a facility in the area which gave the New London Development Corporation the motivation to develop the surrounding area to help increase the current New London economy. The property was to be used as a redevelopment plan which was promised to generate 3,169 new jobs and tax revenues of $1.2 million per year. The court decided in a 5-4 decision that the benefits given to the community outweighed the benefits of Susette Kelo owning the property; the courts determined this as permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. The City of New London had agreed with Susette Kelo to compensate for moving the Kelo’s house to a new location and substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The property eventually became an empty lot which was then transferred to a city dump due......

Words: 1437 - Pages: 6