SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. The Board has not shown that its proffered reasons for excluding religious worship services from its otherwise broadly inclusive limited public forum are sufficient to withstand constitutional scrutiny.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. To Petitioners, like most Americans, their homes are their castles. In this case, they face the loss of the homes and neighbors they cherish through the use of eminent domain not for a traditional public use, such as a road or public building, nor even for the removal of blight. Rather, Respondents – a local government and a private develop- ment corporation – seek to take Petitioners’ 15 homes to turn them over to other private parties in the hope that the City may benefit from whatever trickle-down effects those new businesses produce. This Court should reject the use of eminent domain purely for private business development because that is not a public use under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. Public school teachers forgo some of their rights while they are acting within the scope of their employment. While acting within the scope of their job, they do not have the same rights that they would while acting as a private American citizen. This includes but is not limited to, First Amendment Rights.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. 3 ARGUMENT................................................................... 5
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. This Court’s standard of review in regulatory takings cases should be applied in eminent domain cases. The reasons that call for heightened scrutiny when a regula- tory taking is alleged apply with equal force when the government seeks to condemn private property through its eminent domain powers. While the public purposes that might be served by eminent domain are the same as those that might be served through the general police power, the eminent domain power is limited by the public use requirement of the 5th Amendment. This limitation serves to protect property owners from being singled out, recog- nizes that fair market value will often not make property owners whole, assures that the fundamental right to exclude will not be violated without a compelling public purpose, and guards against the abuse of public authority and the corruption of our democratic process. Reliance on heightened scrutiny in eminent domain cases will not significantly handicap the government in the pursuit of its legitimate purposes. Numerous states have applied heightened scrutiny on the basis of their reading of either the 5th Amendment or of the comparable provisions of their own constitutions. Notwithstanding their heightened scrutiny in public use cases, all of these states have been able to promote economic development, protect their environments, and pursue other public purposes in competition with the other states in the Union. In reviewing the claims of property owners under the public use limitation of the 5th Amendment, this Court should demand that governments utilize the least burden- some means available. In the instant case, this Court should find that the City of New London has exceeded its legitimate authority in condemning the petitioners’ prop- erty for immediate lease to private developers. Individual lives and livelihoods should not be so easily sacrificed to the profits of other private parties and the abstract pros- pect of economic development and increased tax revenues. ♦
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. The predecessor’s viability is legally irrelevant under the traditional common law successor liability doctrine that applies to API. API assumed direct liability for environmental claims in its agreements with NCR, and the law imposes successor liability under CERCLA when a “purchaser expressly or impliedly agrees to assume the liabilities.” N. Shore Gas Co. x. Xxxxxxx Inc., 152 F.3d 642, 651 (7th Cir. 1998).2 We will refer to that traditional successor liability rule in this brief as the “assumption doctrine.”
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. The district court's finding that the Taubman family and its allies formed a "group" for the specific purpose of blocking the SPG/Westfield offer was not clearly erroneous. The Michigan Act was modeled upon, and is interpreted in accordance with, the Indiana Act and its Official Comments. Both the Indiana Comments and the courts look to the standards established under section 13(d) of the 1934 Act to determine whether a "group" has been formed. Here, the evidence overwhelmingly established that in November 2002 the Taubman family, together with its allies, formed a "group" for the express purpose of voting their collective 33.6% of the Company's voting power against an amendment to the Company's Articles that would facilitate the tender offer.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. At the heart of this case are a series of decisions made by the Connecticut legislature and the elected officials of the City of New London as to what will best serve the economic, social, structural and environmental interests of New London’s citizens. In the exercise of its traditional police power, the Connecticut legislature has declared that economic development, and the acquisition of private property to further such development “are public uses and purposes for which public moneys may be expended ”
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. On May 2, 2019, two separate but related actions were brought derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Exxon Mobil Corporation (“
