Southeast Land Development Associates, LP v. District of Columbia
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
2005 WL 3211458 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Hoping to entice a major-league baseball team to come to the District of Columbia (DC) (defendant), DC’s city council passed an act authorizing the acquisition of land, including via eminent domain, for a new stadium. The act’s first section reflected the council’s determination that the stadium would be a municipal use that would benefit DC’s citizens. Later sections of the act designated a preferred site for the stadium (primary site) and provided that a new site should be chosen if DC’s chief financial officer (CFO) estimated that DC’s land-acquisition costs for the primary site would exceed $165 million. The CFO ultimately estimated the land-acquisition costs to be $161.4 million. Southeast Land Development Associates, LP (Southeast) (plaintiff), a landowner at the primary site, sued DC, alleging that DC violated the Public Use Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which applies to takings through eminent domain, and violated Southeast’s substantive-due-process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, Southeast claimed the city council determined the stadium would serve a public use only if the land-acquisition cost was less than $165 million but that the true land-acquisition cost would exceed $165 million, notwithstanding the CFO’s lower estimate, which the CFO allegedly derived using an incorrect formula. DC moved to dismiss the complaint.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.