Add to ORKGThis Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court\u27s holding in Kelo v. City of New London that the concept of public use is expansive unless the government is asserting the public use as a mere pretext and the true purpose is private benefit. The author examines the level of scrutiny applied in such cases, the link between pretext and motive, and the tests applied to evaluate pretext challenges: the burden-shifting motives test, the sufficiency of the plan taste, and the benefits to the public test. The author concludes that pretext is an unworkable mechanism for evaluating public use cases
This Article contends the Supreme Court\u27s use of a primary purpose test to regulate suspicionless...
Despite numerous attempts to subject the use of pretext law enforcement stops to Alaska Constitution...
This article previews the Supreme Court case St. Mary\u27s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993...
This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court\u27s holding in Kelo v. City of New London...
Since Kelo v. City of New London, the preferred litigation strategy for challenging a condemnation t...
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that governments may take one’s ...
This Article first analyzes the debate between Professors John M. Burkoff and James B. Haddad over t...
This Article discusses the issue of pretext and whether evidence discovered by way of a pretext viol...
This paper discusses the concept of public use following the Supreme Court decision in the eminent d...
Courts and commentators have struggled for years to come up with a substantive test for what kinds o...
In their lead essay for this volume, Wesley Horton and Levesque persuasively demonstrate that the Un...
It is inescapable: there is a presumption in favor of preemption. Historically, the Supreme Court ha...
This Article will reflect on (1) how the Whren v. United States failure to acknowledge what counts a...
We commonly think of presumptions as second-best inferential tools allowing us to reach conclusions,...
One can only hope, to put it bluntly, that the Supreme Court majority in Villamonte-Marquez did not ...
This Article contends the Supreme Court\u27s use of a primary purpose test to regulate suspicionless...
Despite numerous attempts to subject the use of pretext law enforcement stops to Alaska Constitution...
This article previews the Supreme Court case St. Mary\u27s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993...
This Article examines the problems with the Supreme Court\u27s holding in Kelo v. City of New London...
Since Kelo v. City of New London, the preferred litigation strategy for challenging a condemnation t...
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that governments may take one’s ...
This Article first analyzes the debate between Professors John M. Burkoff and James B. Haddad over t...
This Article discusses the issue of pretext and whether evidence discovered by way of a pretext viol...
This paper discusses the concept of public use following the Supreme Court decision in the eminent d...
Courts and commentators have struggled for years to come up with a substantive test for what kinds o...
In their lead essay for this volume, Wesley Horton and Levesque persuasively demonstrate that the Un...
It is inescapable: there is a presumption in favor of preemption. Historically, the Supreme Court ha...
This Article will reflect on (1) how the Whren v. United States failure to acknowledge what counts a...
We commonly think of presumptions as second-best inferential tools allowing us to reach conclusions,...
One can only hope, to put it bluntly, that the Supreme Court majority in Villamonte-Marquez did not ...
This Article contends the Supreme Court\u27s use of a primary purpose test to regulate suspicionless...
Despite numerous attempts to subject the use of pretext law enforcement stops to Alaska Constitution...
This article previews the Supreme Court case St. Mary\u27s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993...