Editing Eminent domain (section)

==Meaning==
{{refimprove|section|date=November 2023}}

The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise ''[[De jure belli ac pacis]]'' (''On the Law of War and Peace''), written by the [[Netherlands|Dutch]] [[jurist]] [[Hugo Grotius]] in 1625,<ref>{{cite book |first1=John E. |last1=Nowak |first2=Ronald D. |last2=Rotunda |title=Constitutional Law |publisher=Thomson West |location=St. Paul, MN |year=2004 |page=263 |edition=Seventh |isbn=0-314-14452-8}}</ref> which used the term {{lang|la|[[dominium]] eminens}} ([[Latin]] for "supreme ownership") and described the power as follows:
<blockquote>The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or those who act for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But, when this is done, the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.</blockquote>

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to [[real property]]. Condemnors may also take personal property,<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7U2pK0Y69oQC&q=%22eminent+domain%22++%22personal+property%22&pg=PA63|title=Evicted! Property Rights and Eminent Domain in America: Property Rights and Eminent Domain in America|last=Schultz|first=David|date=2009-12-22|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=9780313353451|language=en}}</ref>{{where|date=January 2019}} even intangible property such as [[contract]] rights, [[patent]]s, [[trade secret]]s, and [[copyright]]s.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Diles|first=Mitchell|title=Condemning Clothes: The Constitutionality of Taking Trademarks in the Professional Sports Franchise Context|work=Washington and Lee University School of Law|url=https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=wlulr-online}}</ref> Even the taking of a [[Professional sports|professional]] [[sports team]]'s franchise has been held by the [[California Supreme Court]] to be within the purview of the "public use" constitutional limitation, although eventually, that taking (of the [[Oakland Raiders]]' [[NFL]] franchise) was not permitted because it was deemed to violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://online.ceb.com/calcases/C3/32C3d60.htm |title=City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders (1982) 32 C3d 60 |website=Online.ceb.com |access-date=2016-08-08}}</ref>

A taking of property must be accompanied by payment of "just compensation" to the [former] owner. In theory, this is supposed to put the owner in the same position {{linktext|pecuniarily}} that he would have been in had his property not been taken. But in practice courts{{where|date=January 2019}} have limited compensation to the property's fair market value, considering its highest and best use. But though rarely granted, this is not the exclusive measure of compensation; see ''[[Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States]]'' (business losses in temporary takings) and ''United States v. Pewee Coal Co.'' (operating losses caused by government operations of a mine seized during World War II). In most takings owners are not compensated for a variety of incidental losses caused by the taking of their property that, though incurred and readily demonstrable in other cases, are deemed by the courts{{where|date=January 2019}} to be noncompensable in eminent domain. The same is true of attorneys' and appraisers fees. But as a matter of legislative grace rather than constitutional requirement some of these losses (e.g., business goodwill) have been made compensable by state legislative enactments, and in the U.S. may be partially covered by provisions of the federal [[Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (1970)|Uniform Relocation Assistance Act]].