Skip to main content
· 5/24/1897

Bauman v. Ross

Citations

  • 167 U.S. 548
  • 17 S. Ct. 966
  • 42 L. Ed. 270
  • 1897 U.S. LEXIS 2116

Syllabus

<p>Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which declares “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation,” Congress may direct that, when part of a parcel of land is appropriated to the public use for a highway in the District of Columbia, the tribunal vested by law with the duty of assessing the compensation or damages due to the owner, whether for the value of the part taken, or for any injury to the rest, shall take into consideration, by way of lessening the whole or either part of the sum due him, any special and direct benefits, capable of present estimate and reasonable computation, caused by the establishment of the highway to the part not taken.</p> <p>By the Constitution of the United States, the estimate of the just compensation for property taken for the public use, under the right of eminent domain, is not required to be made by a jury; but may be. entrusted to commissioners appointed by a court or by the executive, or to an inquest consisting of more or fewer men than an ordinary jury.</p> <p>Congress, in the exercise of the right of taxation in the District of Columbia, may direct that half of the amount of the compensation or damages awarded to the owners of lands appropriated to the public use for a highway shall be assessed and charged upon the District of Columbia, and the other half upon the lands benefited thereby within the District, in proportion to the benefit; and may commit the ascertainment of the lands to be assessed, and the apportionment of the benefits among them, to the same tribunal which assesses the compensation or damages.</p> <p>If the legislature, in taxing lands benefited by a highway, or other public improvement, makes provision for notice, by publication or otherwise, to' each owner of land, and for hearing him, at some stage of the proceedings, upon the question what proportion of the tax shall be assessed upon his land, his property is not taken without due process

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that when the taking is by a municipal corporation, special benefits may be set off, even from the value of the land taken
  • explaining that an owner “is entitled to receive the value of what he has been deprived of,” and that awarding more “would be unjust to the public”
  • explaining that an owner “is entitled to receive the value of what he has been deprived of,” and that awarding more “would be unjust to the public”
  • noting that an owner “is entitled to receive the value of what he has been deprived of,” and “to award him more would be unjust to the public.”
  • noting that an owner “is entitled to receive the value of what he has been deprived of,” and “to award him more would be unjust to the public.”
  • holding, in the context of a Fifth Amendment takings claim, “where the special benefits equaled or exceeded the damages . . . the owner of the land receive[s] nothing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gray

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.