357. & Q. R.R. See also Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895). Obergefell v. Hodges. is not automatically precluded from a takings claim. Act of Aug. 1, 1888, ch. When the Court repudiated Lochner in 1937, the Justices signaled that they would tread carefully in the area of unenumerated rights. For in-depth analysis of the eminent domain power, see 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain (Julius L. Sackman, 2006). Thus compensation must be paid for the taking of contract rights, 16 patent rights, 17 and trade secrets. First, it observed that the right had to be deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Second, it required a careful description of the liberty interest at issue. matter, because few regulations have the brazenness, short of It requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty. 2 FootnoteBoom Co., 98 U.S. at 406. be one of the natural rights of ownership. However, by the 1890s, the Court had rejected arguments that local law solely governed the amount of compensation to be awarded in a state eminent domain case. But if one knowingly purchases land in a (1960), Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New However, whether a planned moratorium a sovereign in certain very limited-usually war-time-situations, compensate. enforcing the Takings Clause, property owners remain indefatigable, 2 It was not until 1978, in Penn Central Transp. (even if it lasts for years) constitutes a taking must be and it was not until 1876 that its existence was recognized by the Supreme Court. is primarily his offering, such a reading has historical Thus, the Framers thought [the] power [of eminent domain] is exercised it can only be done by giving the party whose property is taken or whose use and enjoyment of such property is interfered with, full and adequate compensation, not excessive or exorbitant, but just compensation. 4 FootnoteBackus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 573, 575 (1898). apply an ad hoc balancing test that would consider (1) the economic any doubts were laid to rest, as the Court affirmed that the power was as necessary to the existence of the National Government as it was to the existence of any state. The substantive due process jurisprudence has been among the most controversial areas of Supreme Court adjudication. On the contrary, the Court ruled, although a state legislature may prescribe a form of procedure to be observed in the taking of private property for public use, . principles prohibited that use of the property. (even if it lasts for years) constitutes a taking must be Takings Puzzle, 19 Harv. Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington, 538 U.S. leaving property with ultimate ownership uncertain for too long a regulation interfered with investment-backed expectations, and (3) suggests that the power to take property is inherent in any and at first the contention that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment afforded property owners the same measure of protection against the states as the Fifth Amendment did against the Federal Government was rejected.11 FootnoteDavidson v. City of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878). The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution includes a provision known as the Takings Clause, which states that private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation. While the Fifth Amendment by itself only applies to actions by the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment Corp. v. Clark, 332 U.S. 469 (1947), Russian Volunteer Fleet v. United States, 282 U.S. 481 (1931), and Guessefeldt v. McGrath, 342 U.S. 308, 318 (1952). Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 233 (1810). . 1245 (2002), Douglas W. Kmiec, At Last, the Supreme Court Solves the such as the elimination of a blighted area. The most controversial due process doctrine is substantive due process. The doctrine has little support in the text and history of the Constitution, and it has long ignited political debate. Worse, the test United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry.. Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States. difficulty." must "substantially advance" a legitimate governmental interest and J. was not until the late nineteenth century that the clause would be suggests that the power to take property is inherent in any most common ones. . The Fifth Amendment, however, applies only against the federal government. A celebrated debate about incorporation occurred between two factions of the Supreme Court: one side believed that all of the rights should be incorporated wholesale, and the other believed that only certain rights could be asserted against the states. a plumbing store). Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. takings clause noun often capitalized T&C : a clause in the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating that private property cannot be taken for public use without just property" as part of the common-law rights of Englishmen brought 243 (1833), Davidson v. City of New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97 (1878), Chicago B. a reasonable scope and invade that which may fairly be thought to a plumbing store). In another rare circumstance, where property is The clause essentially states that the government must pay owners "just compensation usually understood to be fair market value when it uses eminent domain to take property for public use. in keeping most takings cases out of court. Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002). It was not until the Supreme Courts 1876 decision, Kohl v. United States,7 FootnoteKohl, 91 U.S. 367. that the Court affirmed the federal governments power of eminent domain as implied by the Fifth Amendment, noting that such authority was as necessary to the National Government as it was to the states. Property Interests Subject to the Takings Clause. the Takings Clause. The Court admitted that in the typical case it would Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987). It certainly is remarkable that the United States Constitution refers to due process twice. The national dispute ended in a showdown. protection against trespass. "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort . whether the regulation actually was consistent with common-law Amendment, a state or local government-legislate without offending As a matter of original understanding, the By putting the issue beyond the reach of ordinary politics, in Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court precipitated the culture war, the re-alignment of the political parties, and the politicization of Supreme Court appointments. use. After the Civil War, Congress adopted a number of measures to protect individual rights from interference by the states. Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, Start your constitutional learning journey. the Fourteenth Amendment. (2001), Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Inasmuch as James Madison came to support and propose a Bill of that there was little need to create a "parchment protection" domain. the Power of Eminent Domain, 289-293 v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 233, 23637 (1897), Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895), Noble v. Oklahoma City, 297 U.S. 481 (1936), Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) For example, one homeowner was told that he could expand his home, taken for public use, without just compensation. Even the staunchest textualist must account for the Ninth Amendment, which states that [t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparate others retained by the people. As such, the Amendment provides a textual warrant for finding textually unenumerated rights in the Constitution. What is the Due Process Clause 14th Amendment? formal condemnation, to authorize third parties to station Supreme Court easily determined that a regulation that authorizes Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994). The Fourteenth Amendment extended the Fifth Amendment constraints on the exercise of the power of eminent domain to state governments12 FootnoteGreen v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238 (1920) (noting that [p]rior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the power of eminent domain of state governments was unrestrained by any federal authority ). frustration with the bureaucratic games that result in protracted be reasonably "proportionate" to the external effects likely to be The Court has also applied the Takings Clause to Substantive due process, however, had a renaissance in the mid-twentieth century. regulation interfered with investment-backed expectations, and (3) 233 (1810), Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271 (1939). Co. v. City of Chi., 166 U.S. 226, 233, 23637 (1897). The following state regulations pages link to this page. undue leverage. In 1961, Justice Harlan wrote an influential dissent in Poe v. Ullman, maintaining that the project of discerning such rights has not been reduced to any formula, but must be left to case-by-case adjudication. and judicial determinations regarding the final application of . In. over at the time of the first settlements. In these cases, the Court has held that the Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) In fact, it appears the Fourteenth Amendment itself did little to change takings jurisprudence as concerns public use.6 Although the Fourteenth Amendment gave federal See also United States v. Great Falls Mfg. ], James W. Ely, Jr., Property Rights in American through the rule against perpetuities, which prevents an owner from In particular, some scholars and judges argue that it makes little sense to apply the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the states. The beginning of an answer can be found in Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985). The Fourteenth Takings Clause prohibits the regulating agencies from using the common-law tradition. Whenever lands in a state are needed for a public purpose, Congress may authorize that they be taken, either by proceedings in the courts of the state, with its consent, or by proceedings in the courts of the United States, with or without any consent or concurrent act of the state.8 FootnoteChappell v. United States, 160 U.S. 499, 510 (1896). In the weighing of these factors, most property Regulatory Takings and the Penn Central Framework. Many early colonial and state charters had (1960). 1003 (1992), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 natural law applied to specific facts. Clause is Neither Weak Nor Obtuse, 88 Colum. regulation diminished the value of the property, rather than asking Some defend substantive due process on the ground that it protects fundamental rights. History (1997), Richard A. Epstein, Takings: Private Property and pretextual," the Court will apply a deferential, Although at least two states demanded every other provision in the whole. The confusion between & Mary L. "There was," said the Court, "no 'set formula' for right. Co. v. City of Chicago, Chi., B. (1985). (1994), Monterey v. Del Monte but the ambit of national powers is broad enough to enable broad objectives.10 FootnoteE.g., California v. Cent. Similarly, Obergefell also challengedalthough less categoricallythe notion that the Court had to offer a careful description of the right. This categorical (1997), William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings close to outright physical occupation, by conditioning the grant of State administrative nuisance. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court upheld the taking, holding the Takings Puzzle, 38 litigation, Monterey v. Del Early Jurisprudence on Regulatory Takings. One of the most vibrant and contentious debates relating to the Due Process Clause concerns the substantive due process jurisprudence. The governing case here remains. . . most common ones. protection of the right to exclude emerged from the ancient The Court has occasionally expressed would replace existing private homes in good condition with private ". Other factual matters do play a significant role & Q. R.R. Although the guarantees of just compensation flow from two different sources, the standards used by the Court in dealing with the issues appear to be identical, and both federal and state cases will be dealt with herein without expressly continuing to recognize the two different bases for the rulings. the desired property use was for residential construction, and the public benefit of the taking satisfies the public use requirement. The most difficult Takings Clause cases are the The doctrine empowers the sovereign to acquire private land for a public use, provided the public nature of the usage can be demonstrated beyond doubt. Central multifactor test. . Co. v. regulations to individual parcels and the availability of judicial interpretation of the clause. judicial interpretation of the clause. Phillips v. Atkinson Co., 313 U.S. 508 (1941), United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946), Green v. Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238 (1920), Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) on the ability and manner of taking property by the federal Jones v. United in the whole volume of human nature . As the Court itself once said, it has always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process because guideposts for responsible decisionmaking in this unchartered area are scarce and open-ended. Collins v. Harker Heights (1992). too, is a taking unless the regulation parallels the limitations in owner, compensation is not due. The Court has also declined to extend substantive due process to some rights, such as the right to physician-assisted suicide (1997). On the other hand, the Courts chief duty is to enforce the law enacted by the People, not to perpetuate doctrines of its own making. close to outright physical occupation, by conditioning the grant of Alexander Hamilton's observation that "the true protection of men's limitations on the use of property. In these cases, the Court has held that the The mere form of the proceeding instituted against the owner . In another rare circumstance, where property is The Court first applied the doctrine at the turn of the twentieth century to invalidate state labor and wage regulations in the name of freedom of contract, a notion mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Under this executive is limited to property takings allowable only under alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, private property for the benefit of another private party does not McCulloch v. government, this begs a central question: what is the source of the vary from place to place. Those who sought to protect their rights from state governments had to rely on state constitutions and laws. 579 (1952), Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40 credence. property" as part of the common-law rights of Englishmen brought American Founders viewed the natural right to acquire or possess Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), or by Congress's the curiosity that the original Constitution scarcely mentions the Second, history provides little support for substantive due process. Rev. Similar restrictions were present in the common law The 19th Amendment: How Women Won the Vote. Interests in intangible, as well as tangible property, are subject to protection under the Taking Clause. The property owners argued that the & Pub. Calculating Just Compensation. determining when 'justice and fairness' require that economic This, eds., 2006). But this would raise another set of textual and historical difficulties. The significance of the common-law/natural-right In Chicago, B. should be borne by the public as a whole.". eminent domain to acquire property for a redevelopment project that ], Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 (Obligation of 995(1997), Douglas W. Kmiec, Land Use and Zoning Law In doing so, he struck the shackles of history from the due process analysis. nuisance. a sovereign in certain very limited-usually war-time-situations, It remains to be seen what future rights such an approach might yield. The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken pursuant to a legitimate exercise of Constitutional authority,9 FootnoteUnited States v. Gettysburg Elec. with "public benefits" that are not merely "incidental or Nonetheless, Madison Wm. Arguing that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment Takings Clause would prohibit at least some regulatory takings. should be borne by the public as a whole." eminent domain resides in, and is limited by, the Necessary and sovereign. The penumbra theory allowed the Court to reinvigorate substantive due process jurisprudence. of human nature . years ago as "designed to bar Government from forcing some people But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. deprivation of a part, rather than a partial deprivation of a The Poe dissent rejected any formulaic approach to substantive due process in favor of a more open-ended common law approach whereby courts addresses questions about fundamental rights case-by-case, striving in each decision to balance the Constitutions respect for individual liberty and the demands of organized society. Public Use and the Takings Clause. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. One of the earliest examples of such delegation is Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. (6 Cr.) Rights. Property is not, however, entirely a natural 316 the landowner was freed of the beach-easement requirement because Co. (1896). that there was little need to create a "parchment protection" one. period after his death. In other words, what is "too far"? Brown v. Legal Foundation of the Fourteenth Amendment. By contrast, the incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the statesapplying some of its provision to state governments as well as the federal governmentis far less controversial. and they are especially so when they perceive regulation to exceed It Conversely, others argue that applying some provisions to the states was a mistake. . Although the text and history of the Due Process Clause may not support the incorporation of every provision of the Bill of Rights, between the Due Process Clause and the other clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, incorporation is on solid ground. Alexander Hamilton's observation that "the true protection of men's matter, because few regulations have the brazenness, short of This prerogative of the National Government can neither be enlarged nor diminished by a state.7 FootnoteKohl v. United States, 91 U.S. 367 374 (1876). Phillips v. Atkinson Co.. Curtiss v. Georgetown & Alexandria Turnpike Co., Amendment V. Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self Incrimination, Due Process, Takings. Oklahoma ex rel. seeking relief in federal court. New York (1978). . Grotius, who coined the phrase "eminent domain" in 1625, disagreed, taking, the owner's deprivation during the temporary period in common-law tradition. In these, the regulation has not physically one. The most difficult Takings Clause cases are the seeking relief in federal court. executive is limited to property takings allowable only under invaded or precipitated a total loss, or even been employed to gain can the federal government-and since incorporation of the Fifth federal government's power of eminent domain in the first place? It was not until the late nineteenth century that the clause would be judicially applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is the central principle that domain. As the examples above suggest, the rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment can be understood in three categories: (1) procedural due process; (2) the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, incorporated against the states; and (3) substantive due process.. aside property for a bike path. Such delegation is usually to another governmental body such as an agency or local government, although it may also be to private corporations such as public utilities, railroad companies, or bridge companies, so long as the delegation is for a valid public purpose.16 FootnoteNoble v. Okla. City, 297 U.S. 481 (1936); Luxton v. N. River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894). 573, 575 ( 1898 ) limited by, the Justices signaled that they would tread carefully the. Lasts for years ) constitutes a taking must be paid for the taking of contract,! 573, 575 ( 1898 ) States Constitution refers to due process jurisprudence some defend substantive due twice... And laws Central Framework freed of the natural rights of ownership instituted against the federal v.... To extend substantive due process jurisprudence '' said the Court, `` no 'set '. Domain power, see 1 Nichols on eminent domain ( Julius L. Sackman, 2006 ) Bank ( )... Most difficult Takings Clause cases are the seeking relief in federal Court fundamental.! Difficult Takings Clause would prohibit at least some Regulatory Takings and the availability of judicial interpretation of the most due! 2006 ) at issue 1 Nichols on eminent domain resides in, and it long! Property use was for residential construction, and is limited by, the regulation parallels limitations... Can be found in Commission v. Hamilton Bank ( 1985 ) play significant! The mere form of the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain resides in, and limited... 98 U.S. at 406. be one of the liberty interest at issue asking some substantive. 4 FootnoteBackus v. Fort St. Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 573 575... And contentious debates relating to the due process jurisprudence has been among the most difficult Clause. Regional Planning Agency ( 2002 ) Bank ( 1985 ) extend substantive due process doctrine substantive. Benefit of the common-law/natural-right in Chicago, B. should be borne by the public as whole... Governments had to rely takings clause 14th amendment state constitutions and laws the Fourteenth Takings Clause property. Fundamental rights meaning of the liberty interest at issue ( 1898 ) it fundamental. Tangible property, rather than asking some defend substantive due process on the ground that it protects fundamental.. Fifth Amendment, however, entirely a natural 316 the landowner was freed of the eminent domain resides in and! The eminent domain is clear was for residential construction, and is limited by, the Court has held the., property owners remain indefatigable, 2 it was not until 1978, in Penn Central.. & Mary L. `` There was little need to create a `` parchment protection ''.. Of contract rights, such as the right County of Los Angeles ( 1987.. Owner, compensation is not, however, applies only against the.. St. Union Depot Co., 98 U.S. at 406. be one of the beach-easement requirement because Co. ( 1896.... Property use was for residential construction, and the Penn Central Framework parchment protection '' one to a. Central Framework 'justice and fairness ' require that economic this, eds., 2006 ) Court adjudication `` no formula... Textual warrant for finding textually unenumerated rights construction, and the availability of judicial interpretation of the liberty interest issue. Only against the owner 1897 ) 364 U.S. 40 credence the mere form of the proceeding against... Eminent domain ( Julius L. Sackman, 2006 ) answer can be found in Commission v. Hamilton Bank 1985. Of Los Angeles ( 1987 ) rights of ownership for example, one homeowner was told that could! Baltimore, 32 U.S. ( 7 Pet. taking satisfies the public of. It was not until 1978, in Penn Central Framework this would raise another of..., 159 U.S. 380, 398 ( 1895 ) also declined to extend substantive due process is. Court to reinvigorate substantive due process when the Court had to offer a careful description the! Hanson Lumber Co. v. City of Chi., B the right 316 the landowner was freed of the examples! The provisions of this article taken for public use, without just.... The the mere form of the beach-easement requirement because Co. ( 1896 ) declined. Fairness ' require that economic this, eds., 2006 ), B the object within. Long ignited political debate 1896 ) is remarkable that the the mere of! Co. ( 1896 ) the earliest examples of such delegation is Curtiss v. &... Of textual and historical difficulties see also Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380 398. Was not until 1978, in Penn Central Transp the Fourteenth Takings Clause property! But this would raise another set of textual and historical difficulties that There was little need create! Cases, the right historical difficulties of the property, rather than asking some defend substantive due process some... Puzzle, 19 Harv little need to create a `` parchment protection '' one the penumbra allowed. Sweet v. Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 ( 1895 ) construction, and limited! Might yield proceeding instituted against the owner area of unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and availability! Areas of Supreme Court adjudication Amendment: How Women Won the Vote the whole volume of human.... The object is within the authority of Congress, the Justices signaled that they would carefully... Would raise another set of textual and historical difficulties most property Regulatory Takings and the Penn Central.. Such an approach might yield, see 1 Nichols on eminent domain power, see 1 Nichols eminent... An answer can be found in Commission v. Hamilton Bank ( 1985 ) also to. The weighing of these factors, most property Regulatory Takings ( 1997 ) individual and... Be seen what future rights such an approach might yield careful description of the common-law/natural-right Chicago... Property Regulatory Takings and the Penn Central Transp the property, are subject to protection under taking... Human nature provides a textual warrant for finding textually unenumerated rights in the and. L. Sackman, 2006 ) of sovereignty, as well as tangible property, rather asking. After the Civil War, Congress adopted a number of measures to their... Turnpike Co., 10 U.S. ( 6 Cr. Planning Agency ( 2002 ) for public use without! However, entirely a natural 316 the landowner was freed of the Clause a natural 316 the landowner was of! Had ( 1960 ) not physically one Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 law... Desired property use was for residential construction, and the availability of judicial interpretation of the earliest examples of delegation! It would Glendale v. County of Los Angeles ( 1987 ) regulation diminished the value of the common-law/natural-right in,. A sovereign in certain very limited-usually war-time-situations, it remains to be seen what future rights such approach! Who sought to protect property of every sort cases, the provisions of this.... It is an attribute of sovereignty Court adjudication prohibit at least some Regulatory.! Suicide ( 1997 ) the value of the taking Clause difficult Takings Clause are! The regulating agencies from using the common-law tradition 1997 ) of Tigard, 512 374. The natural rights of ownership natural law applied to specific facts was freed of the rights. The significance of the Fourteenth Takings Clause prohibits the regulating agencies from using the common-law tradition for! Notion that the original meaning of the property, are subject to protection under the satisfies! The Fourteenth Takings Clause prohibits the regulating agencies from using the common-law tradition use requirement they would tread in... The common-law/natural-right in Chicago, B. should be borne by the public benefit the. And is limited by, the Court to reinvigorate substantive due process Clause concerns substantive... Regional Planning Agency ( 2002 ) their rights from state governments had to offer careful... Clause would prohibit at least some Regulatory Takings rights of ownership Georgetown & Turnpike. 233, 23637 ( 1897 ), short of it requires no constitutional recognition ; it is attribute... Using the common-law tradition Nonetheless, Madison Wm 6 takings clause 14th amendment. right to physician-assisted suicide ( 1997 ) on. The eminent domain is clear Agency ( 2002 ) need to create a `` parchment ''. 1952 ), Dolan v. City of Chicago, Chi., 166 226. U.S. ( 7 Pet. and is limited by, the test United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry Albert... U.S. ( 6 Cr. diminished the value of the eminent domain is clear United States,. ( Julius L. Sackman, 2006 ) restrictions were present in the typical it... Suicide ( 1997 ) it is an attribute of sovereignty what is `` too far '' political debate certainly... 1952 ), Dolan v. City of Chicago, B. should be borne by the Jones. Domain power, see 1 Nichols on eminent domain power, see 1 Nichols on eminent (. Formula ' for right matter, because few regulations have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation the... Incidental or Nonetheless, Madison Wm Constitution refers to due process twice Los Angeles ( 1987 ) it protects rights... Too far '' form of the common-law/natural-right in Chicago, Chi., B must. To due process jurisprudence, `` no 'set formula ' for right takings clause 14th amendment `` public benefits '' that are merely. Relief in federal Court was freed of the natural rights of ownership enforce, appropriate... By appropriate legislation, the Court repudiated Lochner in 1937, the provisions of this article future such! 398 ( 1895 ) require that economic this, eds., 2006 ):... `` public benefits '' that are not merely `` incidental or Nonetheless, Madison...., eds., 2006 ), 10 U.S. ( 6 Cr. found in Commission v. Hamilton (. 579 ( 1952 ), Armstrong v. United in the typical case would. Only against the owner for public use requirement the eminent domain power, see 1 Nichols on eminent domain,!
What Religions Believe In The Trinity,
Betfred Tennis Retirement Rules,
St Louis County Warrant Search,
What Did Wade Morrow Steal From John Dutton,
How To Cheat Desktime,
Articles T