The Power of Eminent Domain - Essay Example

Eminent domain is the power vested on the government to take any private owned property and use it for the public purposes. The government can take the land and give it to another private owner to serve purposes within the national interest (Dineen). The property is therefore used by the government or delegated to a third party. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for the government buildings and other facilities, public utilities, highways and rural roads.in some cases this land may be taken from private ownership if the property is posing threat to the public (Legal studies). The power of eminent domain therefore gives the state powers to take over land in and property and use it for public utility. This power does not consider the private owners hence goes ahead to take over the private property and use it for public interest whenever there is need. However, the state takes care of the welfare of the affected parties, after the process has been filed in the court then just compensation can be determined in the trial. Eminent domain is wide and does not only entail land and property but also patents, trade secrets and copyrights (V). However the amendment that states that the taking of land of property should only be for public and not any other purposes and that the affected parties should be justly compensated is to be adhered at all times However the us supreme court has consistently differed to the right of states to make their own determinations of public use (Wolf, USA Today News). Therefore always involves itself with offering fair judgments to cases involved with eminent domain. The court further insists that the preferred measure of just compensation should be a fair market value while putting into consideration the properties highest and best use. However this measure of compensation has been highly criticized because it omits from consideration a variety of incidental economic losses that a taking of land inflicts on its owners when they are evicted from their land and their businesses (Wolf, USA Today). Brandt concerns a quiet little action filed by the federal government involving a ten acre strip of land in Wyoming over which decades of failed railways operated in 1908, the government per tented thus granting land to Marvin and Lulu Brandt a plot of land including a portion of what was subjected to be the right of way.Several years later, the rail road abandoned the right of way. By the year 2004,the rail road had completed removing the track road and thus the land was free again.it was when the government sought to take the land back to its possession and decided that it would build a bike track on it (V). Many of the land owners whose land had been affected by this time resorted to go to trial. The government conveyed to the rail road only as an easement and not as a fee simple hence the rail road’s interest was only its ability to run a train over the land but not too own the land (legal information institute). Therefore according to the common law of the principles in the great northern. It implied that after the rail road abandoned its easement in 2004, then Mr. Brandt obtained full title in the underlying land (Dineen). Therefore it was clear that the United States did not reserve to itself any interest in the abandoned railway right of way. Marvin M. Brandt filed their complain on April 28,2009 in which they alleged the taking of their firms property of interest in a railway road right of way which transverses the Marvin M Brandt properties in the Albany Country (Dineen). The Brandt Company was contesting against the government constructing a bike trail on an abandoned rail road track which was situated in their land. Brandt was opposing the government’s claim to the land. The government was interpreting a former law that was created in 1875 (Wolf, USA Today News) .This law granted rail roads a right of way through public lands. The judge however found this interpretation to be all wrong because the United States did not reserve any interest in the right of way. On the contrary the government claimed that the United States had retained an implied reversionary interest in the land and therefore Brandt does not own the land in fee simple (Legal studies). In this case the state was the defendant in which its motion was to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and supporting memorandum points and authorities. In this case after taking the railway road it granted it to Laramine Hanns peak and pacific company for railway purposes. Therefore the main intensions for the company to file the law suit was to seek a declaration by the US government that it had taken the company private property without compensating it (Legal studies). It also wanted the government compensation to illustrate and reflect the fair market value of the property that the state took and the damages that they have incurred and finally the compensation for the delay between the day dates that it will finally pay. Marvin M. Brandt furthermore argued that the right of way crossing the company’s properties was more easement that was extinguished upon abandonment by the rail road, therefore under the common property law the company enjoyed full title of the land without the burden of easement (Dineen). When a railway abandons the right of way granted under the general rail road right of way act of 1875, the private party who acquired the land underlying the right of way which was an easement terminated by the rail road’s abandonment (Dineen). The Brandt plot included a portion of land and was subject to the 1908 right of way. Mr. Brandt argued that in 1908 the federal government conveyed to the rail road on easement in which the government retained no reversionary interest in the right of way (Dineen). The court of appeal affirmed a holding that the federal government retained an implied necessary interest in the right of way following the roads abandonment. The Supreme Court then granted certirire. The court rejected the government’s argument distinguishing a former case which involved the great northern (V). The court first rejected the argument that pre 1875 right of way statutes had any significance for the courts holding. It further rejected the government’s claims that the other precedent controlled the case, this is because other previous cases only concentrated on completing claims to air interest in land.it also refused the government’s argument ion the basis that various twentieth century statutes showed that the interest in the rights of the way granted by the federal government (Dineen). The court further states that the government does not have a right to thousand of miles to now abandoned right of way. The ruling confirmed that the government merely had received easements without any long term land rights (legal information institute). The United States is therefore obligated to pay just compensation on many claims in which ownership of the right of way is often a determining factor Authority of the state counties and municipal corporations to acquire by condemnation proceedings uranium mill tailings, public purpose. The state or any country or municipal corporation may purchase or acquire by condemnation any real estates including streets alleys or public highway as sites for the public. The right of way was a mere easement that was extinguished upon abandonment (legal information institute). Therefore the Supreme Court reversed the right of way as an easement that was terminated by abandonment leaving the Brandt’s land unburdened The rail corridor owned by Brandt is rail banked thus it is the federal process of preserving former railway corridors for the potential future use. The railway corridor was also originally acquired by the rail road hence had been federally granted righth of way through federal lands before 1875. Hence the ruling that is made affects a non-rail banked corridors that were created from federally granted rights of way through the 1975 act and it is known that most rail roads created under this federal law are all located west of the Mississippi river (V). On the federal laws face, Brandt is a straight forward case with a narrow holding.it holds that the general rail road right of way act of 1875 conveyed the rail roads only to an easement and that therefore when a rail road abandons its easement, the right of way is extinguished and does not revert the government. Indeed emphasizing the narrow scope of its opinion, the court noted that conveyances made pursuant pre 1871 statutes might turn out differently and that a series of the 20th century statutes purported to answer the issue in Brandt do not define or redefine the nature of the interest conveyed under the 1875 act (Dineen). Despite the cases limited application Brandt is significant for the fifth amendment of the rails to trails takings (Wolf, USA Today News). By holding that the government does not have a right to a thousand miles of the now abandoned rights of way, the federal government according to the justice department may now subject to millions of dollars. While undergoing the trial the court asked the government how many cases were in court pertaining similar cases on Brandt but the government could not give a clear answer. The court’s decision concerning this case ruled that the governments easements used for rural road beds over the public and private land in the west expired once the roads the rail roads ran out of business (Wolf, USA Today News). Therefore the land should be returned back to their previous owners. This case was decided on the basis of the 1875 act of congress and a supreme court decision of the year 1942.therefore the judgment ruled that the government had received easements without any long term gains. The rules and regulations of the federal rail to trail programmes did not change the court’s decision in any manner (Dineen). Furthermore the court gave the directive for the government to pay compensation to the other claims with the similar manner to which the ownership of the right way is always a determining factor (Dineen). The federal government or its states and local counter parts could exercise eminent domain proceedings to keep trails in operation and pay adjacent land owners. More so it was very difficult for the court to attain information regarding what the government argued which clearly showed that the government had no clear information about the size of land that was being talked about (legal information institute). Work Cited Dineen, Daniel. "WILLIAMETTE UNIVERSITY ." 10 March 2014. www.williamette.edu./wucl/resources/journals/wlo/scotus/2014/03/marvin-m-brandt-revocable-trust-v-united states html. Document. 06 aprill 2014. legal information institute, l. "Coernell University." 20 Feb 2014. www.law.cornel.edu/uscode/text/43/. document. o6 Aprill 2014. Legal studies. "Cornell University law school." 24 Jan 1942. www.law.cornell.edu.supremecourt/text/315/262. Document. 06 Aprill 2014. Lgal Studies. "Cornel university." 14 June 2014. www.law.cornel.edu/wex/eminent_domain. Document. 06 Aprill 2014. V, Kelo. "Cornell university law school." 10 aprill 2005. www.law.cornell.edu/suspct/html/04-108-108.zo.html. document. 06 Aprill 2014. Wolf, Richard. "USA Today." 10 March 2014. www.USAtoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/10/Supreme court-Rail road-land dispute-/625835/. document. 06 march 2014. —. USA Today News. 14 March 2014. document. Sunday Aprill 2014. Read More