Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

2004年9月28日 · Kelo v. New London: Economic benefits are a permissible form of public use that justifies the government in seizing property from private citizens.

2005年2月22日 · Susette Kelo and others whose property was seized sued New London in state court. The property owners argued the city violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which guaranteed the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation.

In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed …

凯洛诉新伦敦市案（英語： Susette Kelo, et al. v. City of New London, et al. ）， 545 （ 英语 ： List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 545 ） U.S. 469 (2005) [1] ，是美国最高法院判决的一起关于政府是否可以经济发展为理由征用私有财产并转移到另一个私有实体。

Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the “public use” restriction in the Fifth Amendment ’s Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the some of the properties, but denying relief as to others.

Nine private property owners, including Kelo and the Derys (plaintiffs), brought suit in Connecticut state court to challenge the project on the grounds that it violated the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment.

2005年2月22日 · Petitioners brought this state-court action claiming, inter alia, that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction in the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The trial court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of some of the properties, but denying relief as to others.

In 1998, the small town of New London, Connecticut saw a dramatic turnaround in its economic fate when pharmaceutical giant Pfizer announced its development of a waterfront global research facility in the city's Fort Trumbull area.

2005年6月23日 · When the government takes property and gives it to a private individual, and the public has no right to use the property, it strains language to say that the public is “employing” the property, regardless of the incidental benefits that might accrue to the public from the private use.