Kelo v. City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London
Citation:545 U.S. 469 (2005)
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:
New London is a city located in southeastern Connecticut. After decades of economic decline, a state agency in 1990 designated New London as a “distressed municipality.” In 1996, the Federal Government closed the Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which cost New London residents 1,500 jobs. In 1998, New London’s unemployment rate was almost double the rest of the State, and its population of under 24,000 was the lowest since 1920. These conditions prompted state and local officials to target New London for economic revitalization. To that end, New London Development Corporation, a private nonprofit entity established years earlier, was reactivated to assist the city in planning economic development. In February, the pharmaceutical company Pfizer Inc. announced it would build a $300 million dollar research facility on a site adjacent to where the economic development was planned. As such, the defendant, City of New London, planned a massive multi-parcel development plan. This plan would acquire land on a number of different parcels and transfer them to different parties, some of those parties being other private parties, in an effort to accomplish a large, planned development. The plaintiff, Kelo, had a nice home situated on one of the parcels marked for redevelopment. When Kelo refused to sell, the City of New London used its eminent domain powers to initiate condemnation proceedings.
- 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.