Property Law Keyed to Cribbet
Kelo v. City of New London
ProfessorTodd Berman
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
The City of New London had experienced decades of economic decline, which prompted state officials to target the Fort Trumbull area of New London for a revitalization plan. As part of the revitalization, the state planned to take, by eminent domain, the properties of Plaintiff Kelo, as well as 9 other plaintiffs. The City then planned to give that property to a private developer to turn into, inter alia, research and development office space and parking and retail space to support a new state park, which the City believed would jump-start the area’s rejuvenation. The plaintiffs brought this action in Connecticut Superior Court, alleging that the takings would violate the “public use” restriction of the Fifth Amendment. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of some of the properties but not all. Both sides appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which held that all of the City’s proposed takings were valid. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the takings would satisfy the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the takings were valid, and affirmed the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.