Upload, Automoderated users, edit
78
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 9:
Line 9: − +
Barron v. Baltimore (view source)
Revision as of 04:19, September 19, 2007
, 04:19, September 19, 2007no edit summary
The Court stated that "These amendments [about compensation for eminent domain] demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments"[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html] and that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state government choices on the matter of eminent domain.
The Court stated that "These amendments [about compensation for eminent domain] demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments"[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html] and that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state government choices on the matter of eminent domain.
Thus, claiming to have no jurisdiction over the cause, the Court dismissed the case. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html]
Thus, claiming to have no jurisdiction over the cause, the Court dismissed the case. [http://supreme.justia.com/us/32/243/]