2d at 701 ("[T]he new constitutional language 'broadened the measure of damages in expropriation cases by requiring that an owner not only be paid the market value of property taken and severance damages to his remainder, but also that such an owner be put in as good a position pecuniarily
as he would have been had his property not been taken."') (quoting State v.
They are pecuniarily
liable for erroneous payments resulting from their negligent actions in accordance with section 2773a of title 10, United States Code.
The code shall provide that officials subject to the code must disclose the reason for any potential or actual conflict of interest and may not discuss, debate or vote on any matter in which pecuniarily
(66) Correspondingly, he should also set an example by being less pecuniarily
In 1934, the United States Supreme Court stated that the purpose of the just compensation provision of the Fifth Amendment is to "put [the owner] in as good a position pecuniarily
as if his property had not been taken." (75) Drawing from this statement, compensation for the loss in property value is designed to return the landowner to the monetary position he enjoyed before the value declined.
Section 14 of the charter states "no councilor may be pecuniarily
interested in any contract the expenses of which are to be paid by the city." Councilor Gary Pape has a major stake in Sanipac, which contracts to pick up the city's garbage.
Had the fire been caused by foul play without bias motivation -- for example, by pecuniarily
motivated arson without any trace of anti-Semitism -- surely the reaction of both victims and the general community would have exceeded the reaction that followed the accidental fire, but it would not have been as great as if the arson had been religiously motivated.
'Such failure of the barangay to give proper attention to a required task or discharge their said duty/obligation out of their carelessness or indifference is not only pecuniarily
detrimental to the MMDA, but likewise is constitutive of neglect of duty.''
In condemnation cases, the owner is entitled to be indemnified for the loss of his property, i.e., "to be put in as good a position pecuniarily
as if his property had not been taken."  Recognizing the fluctuating nature of real estate markets, the United States Supreme Court has held that the basis of an owner's compensation should be the market value of the property at the time of the taking rather than the actual cost to the owner of acquiring the property in the past.
'Such failure of the barangay to give proper attention to a required task or to discharge their said duty/obligation out of their carelessness or indifference is not only pecuniarily
detrimental to the MMDA, but is likewise constitutive of neglect of duty, which the responsible barangay official concerned should be held liable for,' the complaint read.