@article{ART001198483},
author={Dongsoo Lee},
title={Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America},
journal={Public Land Law Review},
issn={1226-251X},
year={2006},
volume={31},
pages={97-114}
TY - JOUR
AU - Dongsoo Lee
TI - Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America
JO - Public Land Law Review
PY - 2006
VL - 31
IS - null
PB - Korean Public Land Law Association
SP - 97
EP - 114
SN - 1226-251X
AB - In determining the amount of compensation that is just, courts have established the market value of the taken property as the central guide.In fact, the market value of the taken property must be used as the measure of just compensation unless it cannot reasonably be determined or when application of the market value standard would be unjust.Market value employ three principal valuation techniques to establish the price that a willing buyer would be willing to pay for the property.①the price at which comparable properties have been sold (comparable sales approach)②the value of the property based on the discounted present value of the property's projected net income (capitalization approach)③the cost to reproduce or replace the taken property in today's market, unless depreciation (reprodution cost approach)While the court has relied extensively on market value as a working rule to determine the appropriate measure of just compensation, it has also emphasied that market value is not a fetish and that the market value standard may not be the best measure of value in some cases.In addressing the issue of the how much compensation is just over the years, the court has vacillated between a realistic award that is intended to indemnify the former owner fully for the loss suffered, and a less generous award that is intended to limit, as much as resonably possible, the government's obligation to pay.The central difficulty for a practitioner in the area is that the Court has never overruled expressly its inconsistent decisions.Thus, even today, when the Court's most recent decisions seem to prefer the less generous measure of compensation, the more generous standards reflected in some of the Court's earlier decisions remain good law, and may legitimately be applied by a Court, if it should choose to do so.
KW -
DO -
UR -
ER -
Dongsoo Lee. (2006). Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America. Public Land Law Review, 31, 97-114.
Dongsoo Lee. 2006, "Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America", Public Land Law Review, vol.31, pp.97-114.
Dongsoo Lee "Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America" Public Land Law Review 31 pp.97-114 (2006) : 97.
Dongsoo Lee. Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America. 2006; 31 97-114.
Dongsoo Lee. "Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America" Public Land Law Review 31(2006) : 97-114.
Dongsoo Lee. Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America. Public Land Law Review, 31, 97-114.
Dongsoo Lee. Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America. Public Land Law Review. 2006; 31 97-114.
Dongsoo Lee. Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America. 2006; 31 97-114.
Dongsoo Lee. "Necessity and Standard on Just Compensation In America" Public Land Law Review 31(2006) : 97-114.
