A Review of Supreme Court Cases Regarding Real Estate Laws
Finance 331 Principles of Real Estate
Sherwood Clements
Caroline Kennedy once said, “The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that
means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of
the political winds that are blowing.” The idea that one branch of government does not have too
much influence is imperative to our nation’s system of checks and balances. When looking at the
following twelve Supreme Court cases, and seeing how they pertain to real estate, one can be
confident that our massive system will not let the individual be forgotten. In cases like Kelo v
City of New London and Knick v Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, one individual’s case against
their relatively small municipality was seen before the highest court in the land, a right not
enjoyed by every person in the world.
Kelo v City of New London was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2005. The City of
New London, in Connecticut, wanted to attract the company Pfizer to build a global research and
development headquarters. The city claimed this new headquarters would bring high paying jobs
and additional tax revenue to the city. New London authorized taking private property in order to
aid this economic development. Suzette Kelo sued the city in state court. She was challenging
the use of eminent domain. By taking private property for private development projects, Kelo
claimed the property would not be for public use, which is required by the Fifth Amendment.
The trial court sided with Kelo by claiming the takings were not valid. However, in the Court of
Appeals the decision was reversed and the court sided with the City of New London. Kelo then
appealed this case to the Supreme Court. The ruling finished with a 5-4 ruling in favor of the
City of New London. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion of the court where he explained why the
court ruled in favor of the City of New London. He stated, in summary, that the use of eminent
domain was valid because the new planned property would help the public by bringing new jobs
and more tax revenue.
The Township of Scott passed an ordinance that required all cemeteries within the
Township to be open during daylight hours and given right-of-way access from a public road.
Knick had a family cemetery on her 90-acre property and was notified she was in violation of the
new city ordinance. Knick filed a grievance through the federal court system, but it was denied
because Knick had not sought compensation from the state at that time. By throwing out the
grievance, the federal court was in line with the Williamson County Regional Planning
Commission vs. Hamilton Bank ruling, which states that plaintiffs should seek compensation
from the state level before filing a grievance. Knick appealed to the supreme court because she
claimed that takings plaintiffs are treated differently than other constitutional plaintiffs, which
are allowed to go directly to the federal courts. In a 5-4 majority the supreme court ruled in favor
