Mt. Laurel Case Study

1541 Words7 Pages
On the date August 2nd 2005, regarding the court case: Mount Laurel Township vs. MiPro Homes L.L.C., the Appellate Division of Superior Court reversed the ruling of a trial Court. The trial court entered an injunction – preventing actions against MiPro Home’s 16.3-acre parcel and dismissing Mount Laurel’s case. The ruling by the Appellate Division of Superior Court was later affirmed by the New Jersey Supreme court, and the United States Supreme Court. The Appellate Division adjudicated that Mount Laurel Township had not improperly exercised eminent domain in condemning the 16.3-acre parcel. Was Mount Laurel justified in confiscating private land because the municipality did not want a 23 single-home development on the MiPro site, and would…show more content…
To answer the first question, the Appellate Division cited the Green Acre statutes, the Municipal Trust Fund Act, and the Garden State Preservation Act. From these statutes, the court declared that it’s in the publics’ best interest to set aside land for future recreational use, and to help curb congestion and pollution problems. But this does not answer the question, if eminent domain is applicable in this case. In the second question, the court had no problem with whether the plan was dedicated to open space use as, this was an issue of eminent domain not zoning. Lastly, the third question coincides with the first question. This particular inquiry is now the base question of many eminent domain cases, that is, whether the entity claiming eminent domain is acting in good faith. A blanket statement of the decision is: if the entity has a personal gain from the decision, then eminent domain does not apply, but if the entity will receive no personal gain and is for the good of the public, then eminent domain is applicable in the proper circumstances. Seeing that the municipality did not have ill intentions and seek personal gain, the Appellate Division entered a per curiam in favor of Mount Laurel Township on August 2nd, 2005 (Meislik&Meislik, 2006). The case was later heard by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which

More about Mt. Laurel Case Study

Open Document