Reference health
Pretextual Takings: Of Private Developers, Local Governments, and Impermissible Favoritism
9/9 checkable references clean · checked 2026-08-29
Every reference with a DOI in the deposited reference list resolved to a known work in Crossref or DataCite at the dated check, and none carried a retraction, withdrawal, or removal notice.
55 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
The 9 checked references that resolve
resolves10.3109/9780203490891-9
Histopathology of carotid stenosis: correlation between the types of plaque and the risks of neurological complications
resolves10.1039/jr9530001207
242. Infra-red spectroscopy and structural chemistry. Part IV. The infra-red spectra of some tetronic acids
resolves10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.20727
Hopkins, John Humphrey David, (born 26 March 1945), Golf Correspondent, The Times, 1993–2010
resolves10.5040/9781472544117.0009
Quoting Modernism in the Short Stories: Joyce, Yeats, Chekhov and Beckett
The 55 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedI]f a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case
no DOI — not checkedref3
no DOI — not checkedref4
no DOI — not checkedBatson's procedural framework for assessing whether a peremptory strike violates the equal protection principle, and indeed the very term 'pretext,' are borrowed from Supreme Court opinions in employment discrimination cases arising under that civil rights law
no DOI — not checkedref6
no DOI — not checkedref7
no DOI — not checkedref8
no DOI — not checkedref9
no DOI — not checkedand San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco
no DOI — not checkedref12
no DOI — not checkedref13
no DOI — not checkedref16
no DOI — not checkedref17
no DOI — not checkedref19
no DOI — not checkedLikewise, the dissenters in Kelo distinguished blight condemnations from economic development takings on the basis that targeting blight involves eliminating an affirmative harm
no DOI — not checkedFor an argument that eminent domain is an undesirable mechanism for revitalizing blighted neighborhoods, see Steven J. Eagle, Does Blight Really Justify Condemnation?
no DOI — not checkedref22
no DOI — not checkedref23
no DOI — not checkedref24
no DOI — not checkedFor an overview of post-Kelo definitions of blight, see generally Somin, __ Minn L Rev at *17-24 (cited in note 23); for an earlier survey, see Hudson Hayes Luce, The Meaning of Blight: A Survey of Statutory and Case Law, 35 Real Property
no DOI — not checkedLocal Property Law: Adjusting the Scale of Property Protection
no DOI — not checkedCommunity Redevelopment, Public Use, and Eminent Domain
no DOI — not checkedref28
no DOI — not checkedFor an overview of redevelopment efforts in Washington, D.C. in the 1950s, see
no DOI — not checkedref30
no DOI — not checkedref31
no DOI — not checkedref32
no DOI — not checkedref33
no DOI — not checkedref34
no DOI — not checkedref35
no DOI — not checkedref36
no DOI — not checkedref37
no DOI — not checkedref38
no DOI — not checkedref39
no DOI — not checkednoting that, although approximately half of the project site lies within "a heavily blighted area," the site also includes "an adjacent parcel of land with less blight
no DOI — not checkedref41
no DOI — not checkedref42
no DOI — not checkedOther states have significantly restricted the taking of non-blighted properties in blighted areas
no DOI — not checkedref47
no DOI — not checkedref48
no DOI — not checkedref49
no DOI — not checkedref51
no DOI — not checkedref52
no DOI — not checkedSuch strategic bargaining in a bilateral monopoly situation increases the project's transaction costs, and if the transaction costs approach or exceed the project's gains, the [project] may never be built
no DOI — not checkednoting that the "doctrine of easement by necessity . . . permits one property owner to use another's land when this use is found 'necessary' to the enjoyment of the first owner's land
no DOI — not checkeddiscussing "the bilateral-monopoly justification for easements by necessity
no DOI — not checkedIt is . . . undisputed that Costco could have easily expanded within the Power Center onto adjacent property without displacing 99 Cents at all but refused to do so
no DOI — not checkedref57
no DOI — not checkedref58
no DOI — not checkedref59
no DOI — not checked) (opining that "the Deepdale land grab makes sense only if
no DOI — not checkedLaw Shuts Door on an Open-Space Gambit
no DOI — not checkedref64
no DOI — not checkedref65
no DOI — not checkedEven if a different fee or membership plan might enhance the parcel's value, the course's existing owners seemingly would have an incentive to implement such a plan. Likewise, it is doubtful whether the redevelopment corporation in Rhode Island would be in a better position than the parking garage's current operators to determine whether valet parking spaces should be reallocated for daily parking. Presumably, if a different allocation was more desirable, the current operators could reconfigure the spaces accordingly. 277 There are several other types of takings in which pretext is an issue because the condemnee is a disfavored party. In these cases, like the "same use" takings, the government, not a private party, is often the ultimate owner of the land. However, unlike "same use" takings, the government might attempt to alter the land use to a different use that is a traditional public use. See, e.g., Oswald, 35 BC Envtl Aff L Rev at 65-68 (cited in note 44) (discussing two cases in which the Georgia Supreme Court invalidated condemnations even though the asserted public purposes were traditional public uses (in one case, a public park; in the other, a training area for police and fire officials)). The takings in these types of cases, however, often entail direct evidence of a discriminatory purpose either because the condemnor is targeting individuals on the basis of a suspect classification such as race, see, e.g., Deerfield Park Dist. v. Progress Dev. Corp., 174 NE2d 850 (Ill 1961) (reversing judgment of trial court in favor of condemnor park district where condemnee had alleged in complaint that park district had used power of eminent domain to prevent development of integrated neighborhood in violation of the Equal Protection Clause), or religion, see
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-29 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.1132429"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.1132429/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.1132429)