{"id":1615,"date":"2020-04-16T15:20:19","date_gmt":"2020-04-16T15:20:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rightofway.law\/?p=1615"},"modified":"2020-04-16T15:26:36","modified_gmt":"2020-04-16T15:26:36","slug":"supreme-court-rejects-appeal-meant-to-limit-kelo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rightofway.law\/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-meant-to-limit-kelo\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Meant to Limit Kelo"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a>Ever since the Supreme Court decided that economic development was a \u201cpublic use\u201d for which land could be taken by eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment in the controversial case of Kelo v. City of New London<\/em>, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the landowner bar and property rights interest groups have been searching for cases to limit Kelo<\/em>. One area of concentration has been on what are called pretextual takings, which are said to involve a condemnor advancing a spurious public purpose that masks its true motivation to take the land for the purpose of benefiting a private party. A land developer in Colorado who had a parcel of land taken, in what it argued was a pretextual taking, recently asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hold that the taking violated the Fifth Amendment, and thus overrule the Colorado Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Carousel Farms Metro. Dist. v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc.<\/em>, 442 P.3d 402 (Colo. 2019)<\/a>. In a blow to the landowner bar\u2019s hopes of securing a favorable ruling on this subject, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case<\/a>.<\/p>\n Matt Hull<\/a> is a Pender & Coward attorney focusing his practice on eminent domain\/right of way<\/a>, local government, and waterfront law matters. <\/em><\/p>\n