Court Rules Virginia Taking is a Public Use; Two Dissent

Lawlor, James
January 2007
Planning;Jan2007, Vol. 73 Issue 1, p46
Trade Publication
The article reports that the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that relocating and interfering government project to build a private property is valid public use. Previously, a family wants to construct an apartment inside the planned area. However, the city would need to relocate its Mil Rice to the nearby lot. In its decision which is promulgated in September 2006, the court said that the Virginia Constitution implies that private properties may not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation for the public.


Related Articles

  • Flat ruling blocks permitted rights claim.  // Planning (14672073);10/3/2008, Issue 1789, p23 

    The article discusses a court case wherein an inspector declines to issue a lawful development certificate for a single-storey rear extension on a terraced property in east London, England. The inspector notes that the extension may bring within the permitted development limits for enlargement...

  • You be the Judge. Ralya, Gerald I. // Saturday Evening Post;11/5/1960, Vol. 233 Issue 19, p92 

    The article reports on the decision of a U.S. court in a case involving a deed which provided that a land be used as a site for a kiln for drying chicory roots and, if not so used, that it would revert to the owner. The company built a kiln and operated it until 1945, when fire destroyed it. The...

  • Copyright Confusion. Seidenberg, Steve // InsideCounsel;Dec2007, Vol. 17 Issue 193, p24 

    The article discusses a court case wherein the plaintiffs challenged statutory changes in the Copyright Act including Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements. The 10th Circuit's decision on September 4, 2007 in the case Golan v. Gonzales directed the trial court in Colorado to find out if...

  • Twenty-Five Years of Batson: An Introduction to Equal Protection Regulation of Peremptory Jury Challenges. Tomkovicz, James J. // Iowa Law Review;Jul2012, Vol. 97 Issue 5, p1393 

    An essay is presented which focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Batson v. Kentucky, wherein concerns related to equal protection regulation of peremptory jury challenges were discussed along with its significance and efficacy. It offers information on precedents that formed the...

  • Virginia Supreme Court Invalidates Attempt to Limit Anonymous E-Mails.  // Venulex Legal Summaries;2008 Q3, Special section p1 

    The article focuses on the ruling held by the Virginia Supreme Court in the case Jaynes versus Commonwealth which states that the version of the CAN-SPAM of Virginia is unconstitutional because it sought to ban the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk electronic-mails (e-mails),...

  • Council view faulted on minority impact.  // Planning (14672073);7/16/2010, Issue 1877, p20 

    The article presents a case wherein the Court of Appeal accepted the arguments of a local resident that the London Borough of Haringey should not permit the indoor market redevelopment with flats and shops in England.

  • Eminent Domain May Hit Home for One Justice. Hemphill, Allen Polk // San Diego Business Journal;7/11/2005, Vol. 26 Issue 28, p42 

    Comments on the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court over the case "Kelo vs. the city of New London, Connecticut" in relevance to the interpretation of the Constitution concerning eminent domain. Potential negative impact of the ruling to citizens; Influence of the ruling to benefit citizens by...

  • VIRGINIA: High Court to Hear NVTA Case. Schroeder, Peter // Bond Buyer;11/8/2007, Vol. 362 Issue 32751, p9 

    The article reports on the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court to consider the bond validation lawsuit that would give the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) the authority to issue $130 million of bonds. The decision of the court to hear the case was influenced by the appeal...


    The article presents the facts courts will consider when a dispute over teaming agreements arises. It cites a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that a teaming agreement was unenforceable due to lack of mutual commitment by parties, agreed price and assurance that product is available....


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics