Supreme Court Eminent Domain Case 09-381 Denied Without Opinion

Nonfiction, Reference & Language, Law, Real Estate
Cover of the book Supreme Court Eminent Domain Case 09-381 Denied Without Opinion by James Constant, James Constant
View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
Author: James Constant ISBN: 9781301211562
Publisher: James Constant Publication: August 8, 2013
Imprint: Smashwords Edition Language: English
Author: James Constant
ISBN: 9781301211562
Publisher: James Constant
Publication: August 8, 2013
Imprint: Smashwords Edition
Language: English
  1. The Fifth Amendment requires (1)that valuation and payment, with adjustments for rapid increases in property values and delays in payment, are made before taking of private property by government and (2)that owners cannot have property taken without the opportunity to conduct pre deprivation discovery necessary for the preparation of their defense to the taking. Pursuant to its quick action laws, the State of California (1)condemned private property without making valuation, payment and adjustments before taking private property and (2)condemned private property without affording owners the opportunity to conduct pre deprivation discovery necessary for the preparation of their defense to the taking.

  2. The Fourteenth Amendment requires a valid policy reason for the disparity between the State and private owner litigants. California's quick action laws allow immediate possession of private property by the State and protracted litigation burden for the property owner.

  3. California's quick action laws deprive property owners of their 5th Amendment rights for due process and just compensation and 14th Amendment right for equal treatment?

View on Amazon View on AbeBooks View on Kobo View on B.Depository View on eBay View on Walmart
  1. The Fifth Amendment requires (1)that valuation and payment, with adjustments for rapid increases in property values and delays in payment, are made before taking of private property by government and (2)that owners cannot have property taken without the opportunity to conduct pre deprivation discovery necessary for the preparation of their defense to the taking. Pursuant to its quick action laws, the State of California (1)condemned private property without making valuation, payment and adjustments before taking private property and (2)condemned private property without affording owners the opportunity to conduct pre deprivation discovery necessary for the preparation of their defense to the taking.

  2. The Fourteenth Amendment requires a valid policy reason for the disparity between the State and private owner litigants. California's quick action laws allow immediate possession of private property by the State and protracted litigation burden for the property owner.

  3. California's quick action laws deprive property owners of their 5th Amendment rights for due process and just compensation and 14th Amendment right for equal treatment?

More books from James Constant

Cover of the book Stop Judicial Abuse by James Constant
Cover of the book Population Controls by James Constant
Cover of the book Riemann's Analytic Expression Disproved by James Constant
Cover of the book Federal Courts Crush Inventors by James Constant
Cover of the book Fermat's Last Theorem and Beal's Conjecture by James Constant
Cover of the book Astronomical Rotations by James Constant
Cover of the book Argument and Program for Certainty in Law by James Constant
Cover of the book The Individual And Revolution by James Constant
Cover of the book Fictional Gravitational Forces by James Constant
Cover of the book California Supreme Court Questions Presented by James Constant
Cover of the book How Federal Courts Crush Inventors and Protect Corporate Interests by James Constant
Cover of the book The Declining Individual Inventor by James Constant
Cover of the book Einstein's Fictional Gravitational Waves by James Constant
Cover of the book Finding Pythagorean Primes by James Constant
Cover of the book Petition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257 by James Constant
We use our own "cookies" and third party cookies to improve services and to see statistical information. By using this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy