That's because the state never has opened the door to cities to use condemnation purely for economic development (as in the Connecticut case), and Utah lawmakers recently approved a prohibition against cities wielding that power in so-called "blighted" areas.

Utah cities had resorted to eminent domain in the past within redevelopment agencies to buy land from unwilling sellers for economic development purposes. When the Legislature passed the ban in March, Ogden was in the middle of a fight with a handful of downtown homeowners whose refusal to sell was blocking city plans to see a Super Wal-Mart built on the 21-acre site.

The bill blocked the RDA condemnation and set up Utah to be unaffected by Thursday's decision.

"Utah's unique," said Paul Drecksel, a Salt Lake City attorney who has represented landowners and cities in eminent-domain cases. "This opinion is not going to have a significant impact."

When Thursday's decision came down, an immediate concern was whether it would overturn Utah's recently approved law preventing RDAs from using condemnation. Utah RDAs are designed to bring new life to blighted areas by using incentives to spur development. Cities would pay for those incentives by tapping the resulting increase in property-tax collections that otherwise would go to other governmental agencies.

"It won't affect our legislation," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Curtis Bramble, R-Provo.

Within the opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the same. "Nothing in our opinion precludes any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of takings power."

It doesn't appear Utah's Legislature is preparing to reverse itself on the issue of eminent domain.

"I don't think the Legislature is going to enter that," said Lincoln Shurtz, a legislative analyst for the Utah League of Cities and Towns. "If they do, they are going to do it with extreme trepidation."

Utah law still allows agencies - and some private companies - to use condemnation for public uses, such as to buy land to pave the way for roads, schools and utilities.

When the Connecticut case went to the Supreme Court, some watched to see whether the ruling would produce a wide enough interpretation to include Utah's RDA statute.

The difference, though, was that the high court case included no blight issues and focused largely on whether economic development in general was enough of a benefit to the general public to remain within the grasp of a city. The ruling said it was.

The Utah Taxpayers Association argues the ruling violates property rights and Mike Jerman, the association's vice president, called the opinion "a grossly terrible decision." The association was hoping for a decision that ruled against using condemnation.

"Had the court ruled against the city of New London, that would have had a big impact," Jerman said.

jsantini@sltrib.com