| Reference: | 一、中文文獻
(一)專書
1.Corwin E.S.著，廖天美 (編譯)「美國憲法釋義」，結構群文化事業有限
公司，民國81年。
2.台灣行政法學會(編)，「損失補償、行政程序法」，元照出版公司，民國
94年。
3.林英彥、劉小蘭等，「都市計畫與行政」，國立空中大學, 民國87年。
4.城仲模(編)，「行政法之一般法律原則(一)」，三民書局，民國88年再
版。
5.徐一峰，「土地徵收論」，三民書局，民國48年。
6.翁岳生，「行政法與現代法治國家」，國立臺灣大學法學叢書，民國79年
11版。
7.陳新民，「憲法基本權利之基本理論(上)」，元照出版有限公司，民國91
年7月5版。
8.黃武達，「以如何落實獎勵民間參與都市更新對都市更新條例草案建議之研
究」，建築投資商業同業公會全國聯合會，民國83年。
9.黃健二，「都市更新長期政策之研究」，大佳出版社，民國73年6月。
10.張金鶚，「台北市都市更新獎勵措施與制度之研究」，台北市政府工務局
都市計畫處，民國80年。
11.葉百修，「從財產權保障觀點論公用徵收制度」，作者自版，民國78年4
月。
12.楊與齡，「房屋之買賣委建合建或承攬」，正中書局，民國70年台4版。
13.溫豐文，「土地法」，作者自版，民國93年4月。
14.廖義男教授祝壽論文集編輯委員會(編)「新世紀經濟法制之建構與挑戰
(廖義男教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集)」，元照出版公司，民國91年。
15.謝哲勝，「土地法」，台灣財產法暨經濟法研究協會，民國95年。
16.羅傳賢，「美國行政程序法論」，五南圖書出版公司，民國74年。
(二)期刊論文
1.周素卿，「再造老台北：台北市都市更新政策的分析」，國立臺灣大學地理
學系地理學報第25期，民國88年，15-44頁。
2.邱長光，「美國都市更新政策之演變簡述」，土地改革33卷第8期，民國72
年8月，32-35頁。
3.陳立夫，「都市更新與土地徵收—都市更新條例第二十五條之一修正條文之
闡釋」，土地問題研究季刊16期，民國94年12月，37-50頁。
4.陳立夫，「權利變換方式之都市更新與土地權利人之同意」，台灣本土法學
88期，民國95年11月，155-161頁。
5.張家洋，「美國都市更新計劃的研究」，中國行政32期，民國70年12月，
第11-38頁。
6.蔡懷卿，「美國之土地使用法管制以及其憲法許可界限」，玄奘法律學報2
期(2004年12月)，197-279頁
7.謝有文，「美國都市更新的演進與發展(一)」，住都月刊第64期，民國76
年1月，第31-34頁。
8.謝有文，「美國都市更新的演進與發展(二)」，住都月刊第65期，民國76
年2月，第33-37頁。
(三)學位論文
1.陳永昌，「中、美兩國都市更新之比較研究」，淡江大學建築研究所碩士論文，民國78年。
(四)網路資源
1.立法院議事暨公報管理系統http://lci.ly.gov.tw/
2.司法院法學資料檢索系統http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/Index.htm
二、英文文獻
(一)專書
1.Anderson M., The federal bulldozer, MIT, 1964.
2.Doxiadis C. A., Urban Renewal and the Future of the
American City , Public Administration Service ,1966.
3.Hays R.A., The federal government and urban housing,
State University of New York,1995.
4.Jerome G.. R., Legal Foundations of Land Use Planning,
Center for Urban Policy Research, Center for Urban Policy
Research,1979.
5.Johnson T. F. , Renewing America’s cities,
Greenwood,1962.
6.Koebel C. T., Urban Redevelopment, Displacement, and the
Future of the American City , Center for Hous. Research,
Va. Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., 1996.
7.Kotler P., Marketing Places: Attracting Investment,
Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States, and Nations,
Free Press, 1993.
8.Nelson T.R. & Potter T. A.., Real estate law – concepts
and applications, West company, 1993.
9.Tsuyoshi Kotaka & Callies D. L., Taking Land Compulsory
Purchase and Regulation in Asian-Pacific Countries ,
University of Hawai’i Press , 2002.
10.Wilson J. Q., Urban Renewal : the Record and the
Controversy , The MIT Press ,1966.
11.Wright R. R., Land use in a nutshell(2ed edition)West
publishing co.,1985.
(二)期刊論文
1.“50 States statutory surveys – Civil laws- Eminent
domain”, Thomson West ,March, 2006,p1-48.
2.Askew P. J., “Take it or leave it: Eminent domain for
economic development --Statutes, ordinance,& politics, oh
my!”, 12 Texas Wesleyan Law Review 523, Spring, 2006,
p523-553.
3.Baldas T., “Landmark eminent domain case verturned”,
8/9/04 The National Law Journal,August 9, 2004,p1-3.
4.Burtka A. T. , “Ohio high court reins in eminent
domain”, 42-Oct Trial 74, October,2006,p74-78.
5.Burton H. W., “Property law--Not so fast: the supreme
courts overly broad public use ruling condemns private
property rights with suprising results Kelo v. city of
New London”, 6 Wyoming Law Review 255, 2006, pp255-285.
6.Cohen C. E., “Eminent domain after Kelo v. City of New
London: An argument for banning economic development
takings”, 29 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy
491, Spring, 2006,pp491-568.
7.Claeys E. R., “Public-use limitations and natural
property rights”, 2004 Michigan State Law Review 877,
Winter, 2004, pp877-928.
8.Edmondson P. W., “Some thoughts about the Kelo decision
for members of the historic preservation community”,
SL014 American Law Institute - American Bar Association
Continuing Legal Education 629, November, 2005,pp 629-635.
9.Epstein R. A., “A popular insurrection on Property
Rights”, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty , November,
2005,p12.
10.“Eminent domain—public use—Ohio supreme court holds
that economic development cannot by itself satisfy the
public use limitation of constitution.”, 120 Harvard law
review 643 , December, 2006, pp643-650.
11.Freilich R. H.& Kramer R. A, “Condemnation for economic
development violates public use clause: The Michigan
supreme court overturns historic Poletown decision “,
SL005 American Law Institute - American Bar Association
Continuing Legal Education 217, August, 2005, pp217-226.
12.Fuhrmeister A. J., “In the name of economic
development: Reviving ‘Public use’ as a limitation on
the eminent domain power in the wake of Kelo v. City of
New London” , 54 Drake Law Review 171, Fall, 2005,pp 171-
231.
13.Garnett N. S., “The public-use question as a takings
problem”, 71 George Washington Law Review 934, November,
2003,pp934-982.
14.Goodin A. W. “Rejecting the return to blight in Post-
Kelo state legislation”, 82 New York University Law
Review 177, April, 2007, pp177-208.
15.Gordon C., “Blighting the way: Urban renewal, economic
development, and the elusive definition of blight”, 31
Fordham Urban Law Journal 305, January, 2004, pp305-336.
16.Kanner G., “The public use clause: Constitutional
mandate or ‘hortatory fluff’ ?” 33 Pepperdine Law
Review 335, January, 2006,p335-384.
17.Kerrick R. V., “Rebuttal”, 43-NOV Arizona Attorney 37,
2006,p37.
18.Kochan D. J. , “ ‘Public Use’ and the independent
judiciary: Condemnation in an interest-group
perspective”, 3 Texas Review of Law and Politics 49,
fall, 1998, p49-116.
19.Kotlyarevskaya O. V., “ ‘Public use’ requirement in
eminent domain cases based on slum clearance, elimination
of urban blight, and economic development”, 5
Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal 197, Spring,
2006, pp197-231.
20.Kruckeberg J. J., “Can government buy everything? The
takings clause and the erosion of the ‘Public Use’
Requirement”, 87 Minnesota Law Review 543, December,
2002,pp543-582.
21.Lefcoe G. , “Finding the blight that’s right for
California redevelopment law”, 52 Hastings Law Jounral
991, July, 2001,pp991-1035.
22.Lersch C. J., “From Berman v. Parker to Kelo v. New
London, an Illustration of the U.S. Supreme Court`s
Unwavering Private Application of the Public Use Clause
of the Fifth Amendment”, 18 DCBA Brief 26 , December,
2005, pp26-30.
23.Levine J. S. & Synk P. A. , “Condemnation as a tool of
brownfield redevelopment after Hathcock”, 84-Nov
Michigan Bar Journal 37, 2005 , pp37-39.
24.Liles B. D., ”Reconsidering Poletown : in the wake of
Kelo, states should move to resteore private property
rights”, 48 Arizona law review 369, Summer, 2006, pp369-
395.
25.Mansnerus L., “Public use, private use, and judicial
review in eminent domain” 58 New York University Law
Review 409, May, 1983, pp409-456.
26.Merrill T. W. ,“The Economics of Public Use”, 72
Cornell Law Review 61 , November, 1986,pp 61-116.
27.Pritchett W. E. “The public menace of blight : Urban
renewal and the private uses of eminent domain”, 21 Yale
law and policy review 1 , Winter, 2003, pp1-52.
28.“Public use as limitation on eminent domain in urban
renewal”, 68 Harvard Law Review 1422, June, 1955, pp1422-
1436.
29.Richmond H. R., “Sprawl and Its Enemies: Why the
Enemies are Losing”, 34 Connecticut. Law Review 539,
2002, pp539-581.
30.Sanders D. E., “The aftermath of Kelo”, 34 Real Estate
Law Journal 157 ,Fall, 2005, pp157-171.
31.Sandefur T., “The ‘backlash’ so far : Will citizens
get meaningful eminent domain reform?”, SL049 American
Law Institute - American Bar Association Continuing Legal
Education 703, January, 2006, pp703-750.
32.Tepper B., “Federal court limitations on redevelopment
agencies”, 27 Los Angeles Lawyer 12, March 2004, pp12-17.
33.Tomme A., “Tax increment finacing: Public use or
private abuse?” 90 Minnesota Law Review 213, November,
2005, pp 213-246.
34.Tschetter P. W. ,”Kelo v. New London: A divided court
affirms the rational basis standard of review in
evaluating local determinations of ‘public use’”, 51
South Dakota Law Review 193 , 2006, pp193-232.
35.Weber R., “Why local economic development incentives
don`t create jobs: The role of corporate governance”, 32
Urban Lawyer 97, Winter, 2000, pp97-119.
(三)網路資源
1.Posner R., “The Kelo Case, Public Use, and Eminent
Domain-- Posner Comment”, The Becker-Posner blog(June ,
2005)： http://www.becker-posner-
blog.com/archives/2005/06/the_kelo_case_p.html
2.Westlaw法律線上資料庫http://international.westlaw.com/
3.美國司法學院
http://www.ij.org/private_property/norwood/index.html |
