CASE LAW 6 PAGE ESSAY PROJECT
SEE ATTACHED ASSIGNMENT FOR INSTRUCTIONS
Instructions
Due
Thursday March 18, 2020
SAFEASSIGN WILL BE USED TO CHECK FOR ORIGINALITY…PLEASE CORRECTLY CITE ALL PUBLISHED WORK USED.
How to Brief Case Law
The official site of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is a useful and beneficial tool. Some cases even provide the ability to listen to the oral arguments. This site could be used to supplement any additional information the student might need.
Your completed assignment, both parts one and two, should be a minimum of six pages in 12-point Times New Roman font. All outside sources should be properly cited in APA format.
Note
: There are numerous sites on the internet that provide case briefs. If any student case briefs are copied, there will be an automatic score of zero for the respective unit.
How to Brief Case Law
A court uses the following components in case law. You should use these components when you brief, or summarize, case law. Each component is detailed below:
·
· Proper and full legal citation
· Procedural history
· Facts
· Issue(s)
· Holding, including vote
· Rule(s) of law, Legal principle that was used/created
· Rationale reasoning/analysis use by court
· Significance—What do we have now, that we did not have before this case?
· Case Brief Explanation
Proper and full legal citation
List the title of the case and the case’s legal reference according to APA standards.
Example: Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Here is a link to “Bluebook” legal citation generator
https://www.citationmachine.net/bluebook-law-review/cite-a-journal
Procedural history
Typically, there is a section that covers the judicial history, that is a very short summary of what happened at each preceding stage: trial court of XX found the defendant guilty (as described in the “Facts” section), (party name) appealed based upon (specify legal issue), and the appellate court affirmed or reversed, it was then appealed to the (State) Supreme Court which reversed or affirmed, and based upon the Constitutional issues of 1,2,3, (these are enumerated in the “issues” section) the case was appealed to the (name the federal court), that affirmed or reversed, and then (party name) appealed to the USSC on the grounds of (very specific constitutional grounds); the court granted certiorari (agreed to hear the case on this specific basis).
Facts of the case
Facts of the case should be the ABSOLUTE fewest words possible to convey the legally relevant issues. No details are needed unless they are specifically related to the particular legal challenge bringing us to the United States Supreme Court (USSC). It takes discipline and practice to keep this to a few lines while still capturing the essentials. This section ends with a conviction and provides a segue to the next section.
Issues
Issues are answered using yes or no question(s) that identify the larger constitutional question that will be considered by the USSC and is typically quite specific in terms of a legal issue, but not necessarily specific to the set of facts in this case. It is possible that a single case has more than one issue, but each should be posed in a yes or no question in the issues section, and answered as a yes or no question in the “Decision” section. This is the shortest section; one line per issue.
EXAMPLE: 1. Are “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” admissible against him in a criminal trial?
2. Are “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” necessary?
Holdings
Decisions or “Holdings” always start with an answer to the yes or no question:
EXAMPLE 1. Yes, “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial;
2. Yes, it is necessary to have “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself.”
That question is then followed by the vote count. After the court vote, include a statement about the vote and which justices sided together.
EXAMPLE: In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court. Justice XXX, writing for the majority, joined by Justices M2, M3, M4 & M5; Dissenting opinion was written by Justice (joined by name of D2, D3, & D4 dissenting Justices). If necessary: Concurring opinions were written by (name of concurring justices).
Legal Principle
What legal principle was in question, and was it upheld, modified, or reversed (not the case, but the concept of stare decisis)
Reasoning (Rationale)
Reasoning or rationale is simply the explanation of the legal reasoning used to reach the decision. This typically contains precedence; that is, case law that has already been decided. It will usually modify/expand/curtail, or occasionally, outright reverse previous doctrine. This could be quite extensive for students in law school, but for our purposes, should probably capture only the essentials — what were the main points of reasoning. Relevant doctrine and primary case law upon which these decisions relied should be identified by name (with proper legal citations).
Analysis/Significance
Analysis or significance is a section that basically answers the question “What does this all mean?” and “Why is this important?” Or, more pragmatically, “What do we have after this case that we did not have before this case?” This is a place for students to provide some critical thinking and application of the concepts or legal principles from the case law. EXAMPLE: Brown v. Board of Education reversed the separate but equal doctrine, making racial segregation of any kind unacceptable. Gregg v. Georgia reversed the ruling in Furman v. Georgia, reinstating the death penalty in this country four years after Furman found it unconstitutional.
A court’s analysis combines:
key facts, law, and the court’s explanation.
Remember, the point of a case brief is to provide some consistent format by which someone could pick up the brief and find the relevant facts in a predictable order such that one could make a quick reading and know the salient points of the case, as well as the ruling.
Use the structure provided for all case briefs to provide that consistency.
A reader must understand which facts are most important or key.
A reader must understand which law was relied on or followed by the court.
A reader must understand the court’s reasoning.
Your completed assignment, both parts one and two, should be a combined total of six pages in 12-point Times New Roman font. All outside sources should be properly cited in APA format.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Part 1
:
Using the “case brief document instructions,” prepare a brief on each of the following cases:
· Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
· United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938)
· Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)
· Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)
Each brief should be approximately one page, 12-point Times New Roman font. After each brief, concisely discuss the importance of each case and the evolution of the case law over the 90-year span of these decisions. Within the discussion, include all dissenting and concurring opinions.
This part of the assignment should be a minimum of four pages total. All outside sources should be properly cited in APA format.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Part 2:
Using ONLY the case law for your analysis—cite only the case law, but you can access and read the case at sites such as Oyez (http://www.oyez.org) and Cornell Law Institute (
https://www.law.cornell.edu/
).
Do NOT use
Wikipedia, Answers, About.com, or any unverifiable or unreliable sources.
Discuss the evolution of the Takings Clause using detailed and thorough discussion of relevant and important case law.
Your essay for Part 2 should include a discussion of a minimum of two cases and be at least two pages in length.
3/19/
2
020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 1/7
%7
4
%6
SafeAssign Originality Report
CSU SafeAssign Plagiarism Check Tool • SafeAssign Originality Report Generator I
%80Total Score: High riskRichard Munson
Submission UUID: f72049c8-194e-ac38-7146-f59150698140
Total Number of Reports
1
Highest Match
80 %
CASE (1) x
Average Match
80 %
Submitted on
03/19/20
10:33 PM PDT
Average Word Count
1,805
Highest: CASE (1) x
%80Attachment 1
Institutional database (2)
Student paper
Student paper
Internet (2)
Top sources (3)
Excluded sources (0)
View Originality Report – Old Design
Word Count: 1,805
CASE (1) x
2 1
3 4
2 Student paper 3 bohatala 4 nolo
Running Head: CASE LAW 1
CASE LAW 10
Case Law
Richard Munson
Columbia Southern University
Part 1
Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897)
Facts
The city of Chicago had to take two properties that is private land and two other disjoined areas that are located amid 18 and 19th street of Rockwell Street. Property
was apparently owned by two parties the private property that was possessed of two individuals while the other one the way of collecting was owned by Chicago,
Burlington and also the Quincy Railroad Corporation. Petition that was raised by the City of Chicago was that the piece of land was petitioned so that it will be
utilized by cook Country Circuit because of its own private endeavors. Chicago city had been convicted for the land as well as went ahead and gave compensation to
the land rightful owners. The amount documented for that piece of land was a dollar. As a result the mail railroad created an appeal for the court resulting to an
argument where the due process was maintained in the 14th amendment was ignored and not followed to the end. Irrespective of this move, supreme Illinois Court
reaffirmed the initial case judgment and disregarded the case. Issue
In the case, it sought out for determination on whether the land compensation and condemnations were debased by the court when carrying out the Due
process in relation to the 14th Amendment.
Holding
The court sustained its position that its decision achieved the Due process Clause that was only applied in the duty of private possessions for its utilization of
private possessions for its utilization and for guiding amount as well as the compensation process. United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S.
144 (1938) Facts
1
1
2 2
3
2
2
2
4 2 3
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_id=_65335_1&download=true&includeDeleted=true&print=true&force=true
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 2/7
In this specific case the power was bestowed from the 5th amendment that looks forward to address the issues of the individual which was different compared to that
of the state. The “Filled Milk Act” control was implemented to act as caution against the milk shipment amid diverse sates in America. The country’s congress showed
that any manufactured milk was joined with the non-diary flabs that were injurious to individual’s health. This renders the milk sale as the fraud for the general
public. Carolene Product Company detained its assertions that Milton product where conflict was chastely as the cause of skimmed milk assorted with coconut oil that
resemblance to the condensed milk.
Issues
The main issue in the case is focused on whether there is legit Congress power to give regulation on ways concerned with the commerce interstate which was
purely infringement of registered 5Th Amendment.
Holding
The Court said that the regulation was fully constitutional. Court Rule
The court regulation as found in the nation’s constitution was the fact that it was a good community for the actualized undertakings. The end analysis result
could just be controlled in the favor of concrete evidence. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) Facts
In reference to this case, Lucas was the petitioner of the case and was engaged in the purchasing of a given parcel of land that was located in the beach for
around a million dollar in the year 1986. During the process of purchase, Lucas was known to be sole owner for the properties that were found in the region known as
the Beachwood East Subdivision. Not until the year 1988 where the petitioner Lucas was not allowed to follow the prospects of placing any given building in the
building according to the Constitutional Act found on the South Carolina Legislature (Lucas, 2005). Issues
The main issues that were raised in this case include the concern on whether the decision that was taken by the state of South Carolina would change towards
the possessing of the state of the land along with whether the state need to issue the compensation to petitioner Lucas for getting the land back. Case holding
and analysis
The 4th and 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution show that the case has private land from a firm and that they need to receive all the
compensation. The court showed that Lucas was denied any chance to advance and improved he land in a greater position and in that case, he was deprived the
economic advantage that he would have attained from the land. Lucas (2005), explain that the court was too much clearer that the landowners was like Lucas which
contained the full rights to use Lucas land in the most profitable way possible. The court offered the distinct method of showing a difference amid an individual
deprivation of the land economic value which was picking a complete ownership of the entire land. Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005) Facts
New London City that is within the State of Connecticut ratified in the legislation that gave room for the city to take hold of the private property to also engage in
sale of other private developers. The goal initiative in the year 2000 were to facilitate the city that enable the raising the taxes to formulate the new opportunities for
the area residents.
2
2
2
4 3
2
2
3
2
2 3
2
In this case, the plaintiff Kelo that possessed his home for around sixty years. Kelo property and other individual properties were marked as among the major
condemned city. An injunction was offered by the Court for all the stated properties even if the appeal court reversed the decision as well as approved state’s
property possession. The US Supreme Court later stepped in and gave the certiorari (Nicholson and Mota, 2005). Issue
The major issue in the case was on whether the intention of New London that was mostly satisfied the Civic goodwill or on whether it was a selfish method that was
mainly to take other individual’s property to benefit other individuals. Rule
The 5th Amendment in the constitution show that there is no private property in the US that can be taken having no justifiable course. It is necessary to note that
the constitution 5th amendment ban the stipulate the state that consist no right on whatsoever is picking the private property citizen regardless going ahead and
giving compensation (Nicholson and Mota, 2005). Decision
According to Nicholson and Motan (2005 the Connecticut Supreme Court showed that the London strategy was not just valid, but it was meant for the advantage
of all the present resident in the area. In reference to the ruling, the country’s economic advantage held upon a person is in a position to be rundown for a greater
and good public utilization. The possession of this kind of land does not necessary indicate that any private entity is entirely benefiting as required.
Part 2
Case Laws
Department of Agriculture and James Company
The available Facts
Marketing in California was implemented which needed for the federal government to create a yearly percentage on the production of crops that were meant to
alleviate the supply of the farm produce to assist uplift the producers lives. The company of James was an individual private company that was generating its own
products which had also established their supply chains to international market levels. The private company, did not extend the directed benefits to producers who
completed with the raw agricultural materials. Issues
In this case the issue is if the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment apply diversely to the private processing organization or the dynamic of all organizations that
take the properties of private firms and utilizing them to create profits which are not expanded to the major producers. The other issue is whether the federal
government has the power to instruct the private organizations utilizing their own procedures and policies without putting into consideration on what Taking Clause
offers to protect the people properties.
Rule of Law
The Fifth Amendment argues that farmers in the marketing order were entitled to get some benefit form generated profit from the government sale of the farm
products which were achieved from the farers directly. The private company need to extend the directed benefits to producers who completed with the raw
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 3/7
Source Matches (45)
Student paper 81%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
bohatala 77%
agricultural materials. Judgment
The company should have paid the benefit form generated profit from the government sale of the farm products which were achieved from the farers directly.
Reasoning
Judges used suit where there is lack of the federal provisions to prevent the private investors form giving out benefits to the property owner that offer them with
raw materials. Texas Water Company vs. Jacques
Facts
Texas local government is supposed to offer water to the residents of Texas. Jacques id putting efforts to be given room to utilize public water in running the
greenhouse that is situated near the city. The current rules do not permit one to use the domestic water for any commercial purposes but according to Jacque the
water she needs is for a domestic activity. (Epstein & Walker, 2015).
Issues
The present water supply is not enough for the entire Texas population and the board claim that no one should be allowed to use water for farming. Rule of Law
Water board has the ability to control the way the public water is utilized by the population of Texas depending on the levels of prevailing water and the climatic
conditions controlling the region. Judgment
There is no permit that should allow a person to utilize the tapped water for any kind of domestic farming not until the water Board affirms that there is as much
water that is enough for the population. Through denying this type of permits, the firm is operating on the regulatory body capacity that can be used to determine
how the tapped water need to be utilized to make sure there is continued supply. “By denying such permits, the company is acting in its capacity as the
regulatory body that should determine how tapped waters should be sued to ensure continued supply at all times.” Reasoning
Consuming water is one of the basic activities and until the water is enough for such basic utilization, the water should not be used for farming.
References
Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2015). Constitutional law for a changing America: Rights, liberties, and justice (9th Ed.).
2
2
2
2
2 2
Washington DC: CQ Press. Lucas, D. (2005). Lucas V. South Carolina Coastal Council: 505 US 1003 (1992). Distinctive Aspects of American Law Video Project,
Duke University School of Law. Nicholson, B., & Mota, S. A. (2005). From Public Use to Public Purpose: The Supreme Court Stretches the Takings Clause in Kelo v.
City of New London. Gonz. L. Rev., 41, 81
Powell, L. F. (1982). ”
Carolene Products”
Revisited. Columbia Law Review, 82(6), 1087-1092. Shepard, R. T. (1988). Land Use Regulation in the Rehnquist
Court: The Fifth Amendment and Judicial Intervention. Cath.
UL Rev., 38, 847
.
4 2
2
2
2 2 2
2
1
Student paper
CASE LAW 1
Original source
CASE LAW BRIEF 1
1
Student paper
Columbia Southern University
Original source
Columbia Southern University
2
Student paper
Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R.
Original source
Chicago Burlington and Quincy R.R
2
Student paper
City of Chicago, 166 U.S.
Original source
City of Chicago, 166 U.S
3
Student paper
226 (1897) Facts The city of Chicago had
to take two properties that is private land
and two other disjoined areas that are
located amid 18 and 19th street of
Rockwell Street. Property was apparently
owned by two parties the private
property that was possessed of two
individuals while the other one the way
of collecting was owned by Chicago,
Burlington and also the Quincy Railroad
Corporation.
Original source
226 (1897) Facts The City of Chicago
wanted to take private land and connect
two disjointed sections, that is, between
the 18th and the 19th street of Rockwell
Street The private property was owned
by different individuals as well as the
right of way was owned by Chicago,
Burlington, and Quincy Railroad
Corporation
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 4/7
Student paper 73%
Student paper 70%
Student paper 62%
Student paper 63%
nolo 100%
Student paper 100%
bohatala 84%
Student paper 73%
Student paper 70%
Student paper 64%
nolo 100%
bohatala 84%
Student paper 68%
2
Student paper
Petition that was raised by the City of
Chicago was that the piece of land was
petitioned so that it will be utilized by
cook Country Circuit because of its own
private endeavors. Chicago city had been
convicted for the land as well as went
ahead and gave compensation to the
land rightful owners. The amount
documented for that piece of land was a
dollar. As a result the mail railroad
created an appeal for the court resulting
to an argument where the due process
was maintained in the 14th amendment
was ignored and not followed to the end.
Original source
According to the petition raised by the
City of Chicago, this piece of land was
petitioned so as to be utilized by the
Cook County Circuit Court for its own
private endeavors The City of Chicago
had condemned the land and even went
further and offered compensation for
the rightful owners of the land However,
the documented amount for this piece of
land was only one dollar As result the
railroad mail made an appeal to the
court arguing that the Due Process was
contained in the 14th amendment was
not followed to the latter
2
Student paper
Irrespective of this move, supreme
Illinois Court reaffirmed the initial case
judgment and disregarded the case.
Original source
Despite this move, the Illinois Supreme
Court disregarded the case and
reaffirmed the earlier court judgment
(Shepard, 1988)
2
Student paper
In the case, it sought out for
determination on whether the land
compensation and condemnations were
debased by the court when carrying out
the Due process in relation to the 14th
Amendment.
Original source
Issue In this context, the case sought a
determination as to if the land
condemnation as well as the
compensation was violated by the court
in the course of carrying out the Due
Process in respect to the 14th
Amendment
2
Student paper
The court sustained its position that its
decision achieved the Due process
Clause that was only applied in the duty
of private possessions for its utilization
of private possessions for its utilization
and for guiding amount as well as the
compensation process.
Original source
Holding Here, the court maintained its
position that the decision reached by the
Due Process Clause was only applicable
in the undertaking of private property for
its use and could only come in for its
guiding the amount and compensation
process
4
Student paper
United States v.
Original source
United States v
2
Student paper
Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S.
Original source
Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S
3
Student paper
144 (1938) Facts
Original source
144 (1938) Facts of the case
2
Student paper
This renders the milk sale as the fraud
for the general public. Carolene Product
Company detained its assertions that
Milton product where conflict was
chastely as the cause of skimmed milk
assorted with coconut oil that
resemblance to the condensed milk.
Original source
This the then renders the sale of such
milk as a fraud to the general public
(Powell, 1982) However, the Carolene
Product Company held its claims that the
“Milton” milk product under conflict was
purely as a result of skimmed milk mixed
with coconut oil that bore a resemblance
to condensed milk
2
Student paper
The main issue in the case is focused on
whether there is legit Congress power to
give regulation on ways concerned with
the commerce interstate which was
purely infringement of registered 5Th
Amendment.
Original source
Issues The major issue in this case, is to
whether the Congress has the legit
power to offer regulation on matters
concerned with the interstate commerce
or whether this was purely an
infringement of the 5th Amendment
(Powell, 1982)
2
Student paper
The court regulation as found in the
nation’s constitution was the fact that it
was a good community for the actualized
undertakings.
Original source
Court Rule The regulation as contained in
the constitution was that it is for the
good of the community for the thus
undertaking to be actualized
4
Student paper
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
Original source
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
505 U.S
3
Student paper
1003 (1992) Facts
Original source
1003 (1992) Facts of the case
2
Student paper
In reference to this case, Lucas was the
petitioner of the case and was engaged
in the purchasing of a given parcel of
land that was located in the beach for
around a million dollar in the year 1986.
During the process of purchase, Lucas
was known to be sole owner for the
properties that were found in the region
known as the Beachwood East
Subdivision.
Original source
1003 (1992) Facts According to this case,
Lucas who was also the petitioner of this
case had engaged in the purchase of a
parcel of land located along the beach
for about 1 million dollars in 1986 During
this purchase, Lucas was the sole owner
of the properties which were located on
Beachwood East Subdivision
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 5/7
Student paper 76%
bohatala 100%
Student paper 65%
Student paper 73%
bohatala 100%
Student paper 69%
Student paper 76%
Student paper 71%
Student paper 62%
Student paper 63%
Student paper 70%
2
Student paper
The main issues that were raised in this
case include the concern on whether the
decision that was taken by the state of
South Carolina would change towards
the possessing of the state of the land
along with whether the state need to
issue the compensation to petitioner
Lucas for getting the land back.
Original source
Issues There were two main issues raised
I this case, as to whether the decision
taken by the South Carolina State would
translate towards the state possessing
the land and whether the state should
issue compensation to Lucas for
possessing back the land
3
Student paper
Case holding and analysis
Original source
Case holding and analysis
2
Student paper
The 4th and 14th Amendment in the
United States Constitution show that the
case has private land from a firm and
that they need to receive all the
compensation.
Original source
Case holding and analysis The United
States Constitution, the 4th and the 14th
Amendments stipulate that in the case
that the state possesses private land
from an individual or firm, and then they
ought to receive compensation (Lucas,
2005)
2
Student paper
City of New London, 125 S.
Original source
City of New London
3
Student paper
2655 (2005) Facts
Original source
2655 (2005) Facts
2
Student paper
New London City that is within the State
of Connecticut ratified in the legislation
that gave room for the city to take hold
of the private property to also engage in
sale of other private developers. The goal
initiative in the year 2000 were to
facilitate the city that enable the raising
the taxes to formulate the new
opportunities for the area residents. In
this case, the plaintiff Kelo that
possessed his home for around sixty
years.
Original source
2655 (2005) Facts The City of New
London within the Connecticut State
enacted a legislation that allowed the city
to not only take hold of private property
but also engage in the sale of the same
to other private developers The goals of
this initiative in 2000 were to ensure that
the city was able to raise both taxes as
well as formulate new job opportunities
for the residents The plaintiff in this case
was Kelo who had been in possession of
his home for over sixty years
2
Student paper
An injunction was offered by the Court
for all the stated properties even if the
appeal court reversed the decision as
well as approved state’s property
possession. The US Supreme Court later
stepped in and gave the certiorari
(Nicholson and Mota, 2005).
Original source
Fortunately the court provided an
injunction of the same of all the stated
properties although the court of appeal
reversed this decision and approved of
the state possessing of the property
Later on the US Supreme Court stepped
in and offered the certiorari (Nicholson
and Mota, 2005)
2
Student paper
The 5th Amendment in the constitution
show that there is no private property in
the US that can be taken having no
justifiable course. It is necessary to note
that the constitution 5th amendment
ban the stipulate the state that consist
no right on whatsoever is picking the
private property citizen regardless going
ahead and giving compensation
(Nicholson and Mota, 2005).
Original source
Rule According to the 5th amendment,
the constitution stipulates that no private
property within the US can be taken
without a justifiable course Important to
note is that the 5th amendment ban
further stipulates that the state has no
right whatsoever in taking the property
of private citizens despite even going
ahead and offering compensation
(Nicholson and Mota, 2005)
2
Student paper
According to Nicholson and Motan (2005
the Connecticut Supreme Court showed
that the London strategy was not just
valid, but it was meant for the advantage
of all the present resident in the area.
Original source
Decision Nicholson and Motan (2005)
indicated that the Connecticut Supreme
Court declared that the New London’s
plan was not only valid but also was
meant for the benefits of all the
residents
2
Student paper
The possession of this kind of land does
not necessary indicate that any private
entity is entirely benefiting as required.
Original source
As such, the possession of such land is
not an indication of any private entity
benefiting
2
Student paper
Marketing in California was implemented
which needed for the federal
government to create a yearly
percentage on the production of crops
that were meant to alleviate the supply
of the farm produce to assist uplift the
producers lives. The company of James
was an individual private company that
was generating its own products which
had also established their supply chains
to international market levels. The
private company, did not extend the
directed benefits to producers who
completed with the raw agricultural
materials.
Original source
Case Laws Department of Agriculture
and James Company The available Facts
In California, a marketing order was
introduced which required the federal
government to come up with a yearly
production percentage for crops which
was meant to stabilize the supply of farm
produce to help uplift the lives of
producers James Company was a private
firm that was processing its own
products and had established its own
supply chains to international markets
This being a private company, it did not
extend the indicated benefits to the
producers who supplied it with raw
agricultural materials
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 6/7
Student paper 67%
Student paper 68%
Student paper 82%
Student paper 64%
Student paper 73%
Student paper 98%
Student paper 87%
Student paper 100%
nolo 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 75%
Student paper 100%
2
Student paper
In this case the issue is if the Taking
Clause of the Fifth Amendment apply
diversely to the private processing
organization or the dynamic of all
organizations that take the properties of
private firms and utilizing them to create
profits which are not expanded to the
major producers. The other issue is
whether the federal government has the
power to instruct the private
organizations utilizing their own
procedures and policies without putting
into consideration on what Taking Clause
offers to protect the people properties.
Original source
Issues Does the Takings Clause of the
Fifth Amendment apply differently to
private processing firms or it is dynamic
to all firms that take private properties
and using them to make profits that are
not extended to the main producers Can
the federal government have the powers
to instruct that private firms to operate
using their own policies without taking
into consideration what the Takings
Clause provides to protect the properties
of other people
2
Student paper
The Fifth Amendment argues that
farmers in the marketing order were
entitled to get some benefit form
generated profit from the government
sale of the farm products which were
achieved from the farers directly. The
private company need to extend the
directed benefits to producers who
completed with the raw agricultural
materials.
Original source
In this marketing order, farmers were
entitled to some benefits from the profits
generated by the government from the
sale of farm products that came directly
from the farmers This being a private
company, it did not extend the indicated
benefits to the producers who supplied it
with raw agricultural materials
2
Student paper
Judges used suit where there is lack of
the federal provisions to prevent the
private investors form giving out benefits
to the property owner that offer them
with raw materials. Texas Water
Company vs.
Original source
Reasoning According to the judges used
in this suit, there lack federal provisions
to prohibit the private investors from
paying benefits to property owners who
supply them with raw materials they use
in their production processes Texas
Water Company vs
2
Student paper
Water board has the ability to control the
way the public water is utilized by the
population of Texas depending on the
levels of prevailing water and the climatic
conditions controlling the region.
Original source
Rule of Law The water board has the
mandate to determine the manner in
which public water should be used by
members of the public depending on the
prevailing water levels and the climatic
conditions affecting the region
2
Student paper
There is no permit that should allow a
person to utilize the tapped water for
any kind of domestic farming not until
the water Board affirms that there is as
much water that is enough for the
population.
Original source
Judgment No permit should allow a
person to use tapped water for domestic
farming until the Water Board confirms
that there is enough water to supply the
entire population
2
Student paper
“By denying such permits, the company
is acting in its capacity as the regulatory
body that should determine how tapped
waters should be sued to ensure
continued supply at all times.” Reasoning
Original source
By denying such permits, the company is
acting in its capacity as the regulatory
body that should determine how tapped
waters should be sued to ensure
continued supply at all times
2
Student paper
Epstein, L., & Walker, T.
Original source
References Epstein, L., & Walker, T
2
Student paper
Constitutional law for a changing
America: Rights, liberties, and justice (9th
Ed.).
Original source
Constitutional law for a changing
America Rights, liberties, and justice (9th
Ed.)
4
Student paper
South Carolina Coastal Council:
Original source
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL
2
Student paper
505 US 1003 (1992). Distinctive Aspects
of American Law Video Project, Duke
University School of Law. Nicholson, B., &
Mota, S.
Original source
505 US 1003 (1992) Distinctive Aspects of
American Law Video Project, Duke
University School of Law Nicholson, B., &
Mota, S
2
Student paper
From Public Use to Public Purpose: The
Supreme Court Stretches the Takings
Clause in Kelo v. City of New London.
Original source
From Public Use to Public Purpose The
Supreme Court Stretches the Takings
Clause in Kelo v City of New London
2
Student paper
Rev., 41, 81
Original source
Rev., 41, 81 Powell, L
2
Student paper
Carolene Products”
Original source
Carolene Products”
3/19/2020 Originality Report
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/webapps/mdb-sa-bb_bb60/originalityReport/ultra?attemptId=7210133c-be9d-4e2e-993a-6efbd17ca57b&course_i… 7/7
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%
Student paper 100%2
Student paper
Columbia Law Review, 82(6), 1087-1092.
Original source
Columbia Law Review, 82(6), 1087-1092
2
Student paper
Land Use Regulation in the Rehnquist
Court: The Fifth Amendment and Judicial
Intervention.
Original source
Land Use Regulation in the Rehnquist
Court The Fifth Amendment and Judicial
Intervention
2
Student paper
UL Rev., 38, 847.
Original source
UL Rev., 38, 847