Editing Eminent domain (section)

=== United States ===
{{main|Eminent domain in the United States}}

Most states use the term ''eminent domain'', but some U.S. states use the term ''[[appropriation (economics)|appropriation]]'' or ''expropriation'' (Louisiana) as synonyms for the exercise of eminent domain powers.<ref>{{cite web |title=New York Code, Public Lands, Art. 2, Sec. 27, Appropriations |url=https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PBL/27 |website=NYSenate.gov |publisher=The New York Senate |access-date=17 May 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Louisiana Revised Statutes, Title 19, Expropriation |url=http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/laws_Toc.aspx?folder=75&level=Parent |website=Louisiana State Legislature |access-date=17 May 2017}}</ref> The term ''condemnation'' is used to describe the formal act of exercising the power to transfer title or some lesser interest in the subject property.

The constitutionally required "just compensation" in partial takings is usually measured by fair market value of the part taken, plus severance damages (the diminution in value of the property retained by the owner [remainder] when only a part of the subject property is taken). Where a partial taking provides economic benefits specific to the remainder, those must be deducted, typically from severance damages. Some elements of value, such as a business's connection to the location and the [[Goodwill (accounting)|goodwill of the public]], are only compensable in a few jurisdictions; where they are not, fair market value may be less than the value of the location to the current user.

The practice of condemnation came to the American colonies with the [[common law]]. When it came time to draft the [[United States Constitution]], differing views on eminent domain were voiced. The [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] to the Constitution requires that the taking be for a "public use" and mandates payment of "just compensation" to the owner.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_04_benson.pdf |title=The Evolution of Eminent Domain: A Remedy for Market Failure or an Effort to Limit Government Power and Government Failure? |website=Independent.org |access-date=2016-08-05}}</ref>

In federal law, Congress can take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals.<ref>See, e.g., {{cite web|title=''Linggi v. Garovotti'', 45 Cal.2d 20, 286 P.2d 15 (1955).|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15917425264572652948|website=Google Scholar|access-date=13 May 2018}}</ref> The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of "public use".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Portner |first1=Jonathan |title=The Continued Expansion of thePublic Use Requirement in Eminent Domain |journal=The University of Baltimore Law Review |date=Spring 1988 |volume=17 |issue=6 |page=543}}</ref>

Since the 1950's, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued four major rulings expanding the government's power of eminent domain; they are: ''[[Berman v. Parker]]'' (1954), ''[[Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff]]'' (1984), ''[[Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City]]'' (1978) and ''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'' (2005).