Holding: The test: So long as the state’s use of its eminent domain power is “rationally related” to a conceivable public purpose the public use requirement is satisfied. As with any other state conduct sought to be justified as an exercise of the police power, all that was required was that the legislature “rationally could have believed” that the act would promote a legitimate objective, the scheme here easily passed this test. The “public use” requirement is thus coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers.
– Can have public use even though there is a transfer from one individual to another.
-Eminent domain and the scope of police power are coterminous.
We have located some similar legal questions and legal question categories. Check out these challenging questions that askquestions about Supreme Court Cases and are similar to What was the holding in the Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) case?. Also, we have included a list of some of our more popular legal question categories. These categories are based on what everyone is asking and answering.