Minnesota Law Review

Note, Blight and Its Discontents: Awarding Attorney’s Fees to Property Owners in Redevelopment Actions

The public response to the now notorious 2005 Supreme Court decision Kelo v. City of New London changed the landscape of redevelopment law in the United States. In Kelo, the Court held that eminent domain could be used to transfer property from one private party to another private party for purposes of economic development under the Takings Clause of the Constitution. While the ruling itself confirmed a long line of precedent applying a deferential standard of review to the use of eminent domain, the unprecedented public backlash against the decision sparked a flurry of activity on the state level to provide additional protections to property owners. Condemned by figures on the left and the right of the political spectrum and opposed by approximately eighty percent of the American population, the Kelo decision has provoked forty-two states to pass stricter laws curtailing the government’s power to take private property for the purposes of economic development.

Despite the recent attention this issue has received and the reform legislation that has been enacted, there remain significant problems with the effective implementation of these new protections for property owners. This Note addresses the difficulties property owners face in taking advantage of their rights under current eminent domain statutes given the complicated nature of the statutes and the often prohibitive cost of hiring legal representation. As a solution, the Note proposes a simple fee shifting statute that would allow property owners to have their attorney’s fees paid for by redevelopment agencies under certain circumstances. This approach would significantly improve implementation of statutory protections by giving property owners full access to the courts.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]