The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation - LightNovelsOnl.com
You're reading novel online at LightNovelsOnl.com. Please use the follow button to get notifications about your favorite novels and its latest chapters so you can come back anytime and won't miss anything.
[627] Exercisable as to every description of property, tangibles and intangibles including choses in action, contracts, and charters, but only for a public purpose, the power of eminent domain may also be conferred by the State upon munic.i.p.al corporations, public utilities, and even upon individuals. Like every other governmental power, the power of eminent domain cannot be surrendered by the State or its subdivisions either by contract or by any other means.--Long Island Water Supply Co. _v._ Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 (1897); Offield _v._ New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 203 U.S. 372 (1906); Sweet _v._ Rechel, 159 U.S.
380 (1895); Clark _v._ Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905); Pennsylvania Hospital _v._ Philadelphia, 245 U.S. 20 (1917); Galveston Wharf Co. _v._ Galveston, 260 U.S. 473 (1923).
[628] Green _v._ Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 238 (1920).
[629] 7 Pet. 243.
[630] 96 U.S. 97, 105.
[631] 166 U.S. 226, 233, 236-237 (1897); _see also_ Sweet _v_: Rechel, 159 U.S. 380, 398 (1895).
[632] Hairston _v._ Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 606 (1908).
[633] Green _v._ Frazier, 253 U.S. 233, 240 (1920); Cincinnati _v._ Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 446 (1930).
[634] Hairston _v._ Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 607 (1908).
[635] United States ex rel. T.V.A. _v._ Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 551-552, 556-558 (1946), citing Case _v._ Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 101 (1946), and New York _v._ United States, 326 U.S. 572 (1946)--Concurring in the result, Justice Frankfurter insisted that "the fact that the nature of the subject matter gives the legislative determination nearly immunity from judicial review does not mean that the power to review is wanting."
Also concurring in the result, Justice Reed, for himself and Chief Justice Stone, dissented from that portion of the opinion which suggested that "there is no judicial review" of the question whether a "taking is for a public purpose."
[636] Justice Reed concurring in United States ex rel. T.V.A. _v._ Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 557 (1946).
[637] Bragg _v._ Weaver, 251 U.S. 57-59 (1919).--It is no longer open to question that the State legislature may confer upon a munic.i.p.ality the authority to determine such necessity for itself.--Joslin Mfg. Co. _v._ Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678 (1923).
[638] Rindge Co. _v._ Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700 (1923).
[639] Pumpelly _v._ Green Bay Company, 13 Wall. 166, 177-178 (1872); Welch _v._ Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909); Pennsylvania Coal Co. _v._ Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922). _See also_ comparable cases involving the Federal Government and discussed under the Fifth Amendment, United States _v._ Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903); United States _v._ Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917); Portsmouth Harbor L. & H. Co. _v._ United States, 260 U.S. 327 (1922); United States _v._ Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). _See also_ the cases hereinafter discussed on the limitations on "uncompensated takings."
[640] Long Island Water Supply Co. _v._ Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 (1897)
[641] Clark _v._ Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905).
[642] Strickley _v._ Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906).
[643] Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. _v._. Alabama Interstate Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916).
[644] Hendersonville Light & Power Co. _v._. Blue Ridge Interurban R.
Co., 243 U.S. 563 (1917).
[645] Roe _v._ Kansas ex rel. Smith, 278 U.S. 191, 193 (1929).
[646] Dohany _v._ Rogers, 281 U.S. 362 (1930).
[647] Hairston _v._ Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598 (1908).
[648] Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. _v._ Morristown, 276 U.S. 182 (1928).
[649] Otis Co. _v._ Ludlow Mfg. Co., 201 U.S. 140, 151, 153 (1906). _See also_ Head _v._ Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9, 20-21 (1885).
[650] Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Nebraska ex rel. Board of Transportation, 164 U.S. 403, 416 (1896). The State court in this case was declared to have acknowledged that the taking was not for a public use. Hence, its reversal by the Supreme Court did not conflict with the later observation by the Court that "no case is recalled where this Court has condemned * * * a taking upheld by the State court as a taking for public uses in conformity with its laws."--_See_ Hairston _v._ Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 607 (1908).
[651] Backus (A.) Jr. and Sons _v._ Port Street Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 573, 575 (1898).
[652] McGovern _v._ New York, 229 U.S. 363, 370-371 (1913).
[653] Ibid. 371.
[654] Provo Bench Ca.n.a.l and Irrig. Co. _v._ Tanner, 239 U.S. 323 (1915); Appleby _v._ Buffalo, 221 U.S. 524 (1911).
[655] Backus (A.) Jr. and Sons _v._ Port Street Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 569 (1898).
[656] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. _v._ Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 250 (1897); McGovern _v._ New York, 229 U.S. 363, 372 (1913).
[657] Roberts _v._ New York, 295 U.S. 264 (1935).
[658] Dohany _v._ Rogers, 281 U.S. 362 (1930).
[659] Joslin Mfg. Co. _v._ Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 677 (1923).
[660] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. _v._ Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 255 (1897).
[661] Manigault _v._ Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 484-485 (1905).
[662] Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. _v._ Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 252 (1897).
[663] Darling _v._ Newport News, 249 U.S. 540 (1919).
[664] Northern Transportation Co. _v._ Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 642 (1879).
_See also_ Marchant _v._ Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 153 U.S. 380 (1894).
[665] Meyer _v._ Richmond, 172 U.S. 82 (1898). For cases ill.u.s.trative of the types of impairment or flooding consequent upon erection of dams or aids to navigation which have been deemed to amount to a taking for which compensation must be paid, _see_ Pumpelly _v._ Green Bay Company, 13 Wall. 166 (1872); United States _v._ Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903); United States _v._ Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917).
[666] Sauer _v._ New York, 206 U.S. 536 (1907).
[667] Welch _v._ Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909).
[668] Pennsylvania Coal Co. _v._ Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413-414 (1922).
For comparable cases involving the Federal Government _see_ Portsmouth Harbor L. & H. Co. _v._ United States, 260 U.S. 327 (1922) and United States _v._ Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946).
[669] Georgia _v._ Chattanooga, 264 U.S. 472, 483 (1924).
[670] North Laramie Land Co. _v._ Hoffman, 268 U.S. 276, 283 (1925).
_See also_ Bragg _v._ Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (1919).
[671] Bragg _v._ Weaver, 251 U.S. 57 (1919); Joslin Mfg. Co. _v._ Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678 (1923).
[672] Bragg _v._ Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 59 (1919); North Laramie Land Co.
_v._ Hoffman, 268 U.S. 276 (1925).
[673] Bragg _v._ Weaver, 251 U.S. 57, 59 (1919).
