1. Is it a violation of due process and the taking clause for the state – as a matter of law – to allow a private corporation to take private property through eminent domain based solely on the private corporation's own determination that the taking is for a public use?

2. In an eminent domain case where the trier of fact has found that the taking is not a public use, is not necessary, and is merely for the convenience of one private entity for the benefit of another private entity, is it a violation of due process and the taking clause for an appellate court to disregard these evidentiary findings and allow the taking to occur based solely on the private company's own determination that there is a public use?

3. Should the case of Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), be overruled and the analysis presented by Justice Thomas in his dissent be adopted by this Court?

Is it a violation of due process and the taking clause for the state to allow a private corporation to take private property through eminent domain based solely on the private corporation's own determination that the taking is for a public use?