Description
Legal writing is different from other kinds of writing in many ways, but the most important distinction is that it tends to be much more tightly structured than other forms of writing.
For this assignment, I want you to brief the case Kelo v. New London, which you should have recently read in your text book. What you read in the book was very much a distilled version of that case. I want you to start your briefing assignment by reading the entire case, and then following the instructions in the file attached that will describe how you should go about briefing a case.
** I only want you to brief the decision of the court (in this case, that's Justice Stevens's opinion) and Justice O'Connor's dissent.
But don't try to brief the case before reading the instructions on how to brief a case! (It is attached). I will put 3 pages but honestly I do not know how long it the briefing should be. It might be shorter or longer.
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Explanation & Answer
Attached.
Running head: CASE BRIEFING: KELO V. NEW LONDON
Case Briefing: Kelo V. New London
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
1
CASE BRIEFING: KELO V. NEW LONDON
2
Case Briefing: Kelo V. New London
1.
Kelo v New London, 545 U.S 469, (2005), 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, Affirmed.
2.
Facts: This case arose when the plaintiff, Suzette Kelo, sued the city of New London for
misuse of eminent domain power. Eminent domain power is limited under the fifth and the
fourteenth amendment where it is stated that private property should not be taken for public use
without just compensation. In the case, the city of New London had requested the public to sell
their property to the new London development corporation for private construction of an
economic facility that was aimed at benefiting the society of new London. However, Kelo argued
that the stated purpose for the land property did not qualify as a public use under the fifth
amendment. The state courts issued its decision in 2004, siding with the city. The case was then
moved to the state supreme court. The city, however, prevailed with the court statement stating
that the city did not violate the public use clauses and requested for court costs pursuant to
Conn.Gen.Stat. 52-257. The property owners objected to the costs for ...