Eminent Domain

(redirected from Takings law)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Legal, Encyclopedia.

Eminent Domain

The right of a government to force the sale of real estate by a private individual or corporation in certain cases. For example, if a municipality is building a road, it may exercise eminent domain to purchase the land along which the road is going to run. While the private owners are paid for these purchases, they may not refuse to sell. The term is most common in the United States. The concept is called compulsory purchase in the United Kingdom and compulsory acquisition in Australia.
Farlex Financial Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All Rights Reserved

eminent domain

The power of government to take land for the public good with the payment of just compensation.See condemnation.
The Complete Real Estate Encyclopedia by Denise L. Evans, JD & O. William Evans, JD. Copyright © 2007 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Eminent Domain

The right of a government authority to take private property for public use and paying fair compensation to the owner.
Copyright © 2008 H&R Block. All Rights Reserved. Reproduced with permission from H&R Block Glossary
References in periodicals archive ?
all the safeguards implicated by takings law, regardless of the
takings law provides protection against a particular concern, each one
such regulations often are not compensable under existing takings law.
Modern regulatory takings law traces its beginnings to the 1922
The idea that homes deserve special protection under takings law has not been confined to dissenting opinions or media reports; instead, U.S.
Taken together, the Nail House case and Kelo represent a convergence in principles of Takings Law between the People's Republic of China and the United States.
Indeed, Lingle may represent the final stake in the argument that Mugler, a favorite case of takings opponents, remains a viable and meaningful precedent in contemporary takings law. (60)
Despite its surface modesty, Lingle has tremendous potential to clarify regulatory takings law through its doctrinal separation of substantive due process and regulatory takings.
Professor Lunney's second argument in support of the claim that a progressive takings law would generate regressive placement decisions is that such a regime would reduce the opposition of weaker landowners to placement decisions that hurt them.
Desirable they are, he admits, but he still claims that "these, like all virtues, come from within and cannot be forced by legal rules."(60) A progressive takings law may generate desirable material results, "[b]ut we should not make the mistake of thinking that we have thereby made [the affected] landowners more virtuous or more responsible.
To be sure, thinking about takings law as a system for regulating government regulation is not the whole story behind takings law (as the other contributions to this Symposium make clear).
Of course all the intellectual currency in the world wasn't going to do any good if the voters perceived the takings laws and similar measures as attempts to poison the air and water, so the developers took a page from the environmentalists' playbook.