Cole v. La Grange
Citations
- 113 U.S. 1
- 5 S. Ct. 416
- 28 L. Ed. 896
- 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1645
Syllabus
<p>The general grant of legislative power in the Constitution of a State does not authorize the legislature, in the ecxerise either of the right of eminent domain, or of the right of taxation, to take private property, without the owner’s consent, for any but a public object. •</p> <p>The .legislature of Missouri has no constitutional bower to authorize a city to issue its bonds by way of donation to a private manufacturing corporation.</p>
About this case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Cole v. La Grange )
1885 United States Supreme Court case
Cole v. City of La Grange, 113 U.S. 1 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the general grant of legislative power in a state constitution only enables the legislature to use eminent domain or taxation to take private property, without the owner's consent, for a public purpose.[1] [2] [3]
Background
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_v._City_of_La_Grange&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
]
The city of La Grange attempted to use eminent domain to condemn property for the benefit of La Grange Iron and Steel Company to expand that served no public benefit.
Decision
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_v._City_of_La_Grange&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Decision")
]
The Court held that the Missouri legislature could not authorize La Grange to issue bonds to assist corporations in their private business.
Citation in future cases
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_v._City_of_La_Grange&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Citation in future cases")
]
The case was cited in the dissenting opinion of Justice Thomas in _Kelo v. City of New London _, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
References
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_v._City_of_La_Grange&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: References")
]
- ↑ Syllabus of Cole v. City of La Grange, 113 U.S. 1 (1885). This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the public domain .
- ↑ Paul W. Tschetter, Kelo v. New London: A Divided Court Affirms the Rational Basis Standard of Review in Evaluating Local Determinations of Public Use, 51 S.D. L. Rev. 193, 216 n.166 (2006).
- ↑ Charles J. Fain, The Use of the Power of Eminent Domain by Missouri Electric Cooperatives, 17 Mo. L. Rev. 159 (April 1952).
External links
[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_v._City_of_La_Grange&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: External links")
]
- Text of Cole v. City of La Grange, 113 U.S. 1 (1885) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
United States Fifth Amendment case law
United States Fifth Amendment criminal procedure case law
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cole_v._City_of_La_Grange&oldid=1361597603 "
Hidden categories:
Search
Search
Cole v. City of La Grange
Add languages Add topic
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- interpreting same language in the Missouri Public Use Clause
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 1,229×
- Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co.Supreme Court· 1937-05-24· cited 904×
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court· 2005-06-23· cited 591×
- Williams v. Mayor of BaltimoreSupreme Court· 1933-03-13· cited 395×
- Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining CompanySupreme Court· 1905-01-16· cited 291×
- Armendariz v. PenmanNinth Circuit· 1996-02-07· cited 281×
- Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utilities Corp.Supreme Court· 1937-02-01· cited 231×
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. NebraskaSupreme Court· 1896-11-30· cited 135×
- Dr. Ben Branch, Trustee of Bank of New England Corporation, Derivatively and on Behalf and in the Name of Maine National Bank v. United StatesFederal Circuit· 1996-02-07· cited 105×
- State v. Nelson CountyNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1890-04-21· cited 59×
- Railroad Co. v. Iron-WorksWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1888-12-15· cited 40×
- Opinion of the Justices to the SenateMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1900-03-28· cited 36×
- Waterford Electric Light, Heat & Power Co. v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1924-03-11· cited 22×
- Puerto Rico Tobacco Corp. v. BuscagliaSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1944-01-18· cited 22×
- Opinion of the Justices to the Governor & CouncilMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1922-07-05· cited 20×
- Dodge v. Mission Tp.Eighth Circuit· 1901-04-11· cited 19×
- Baltimore & Eastern Shore Railroad v. SpringCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1895-02-28· cited 15×
- Larabee v. DolleyD. Kansas· 1909-12-23· cited 15×
- Burley v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1910-07-05· cited 15×
- Detroit Museum of Art v. EngelMichigan Supreme Court· 1915-07-23· cited 13×
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Parkersburg v. BrownSupreme Court· 1883-01-18· cited 177×
- Weismer v. . Village of DouglasNew York Court of Appeals· 1876-02-01· cited 67×
- Ottawa v. CareySupreme Court· 1883-03-19· cited 59×
- Taylor v. YpsilantiSupreme Court· 1882-03-20· cited 49×
- County of Livingston v. DarlingtonSupreme Court· 1880-04-19· cited 42×
- Inhabitants of Agawam v. County of HampdenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1881-04-09· cited 37×
- Ottawa v. National BankSupreme Court· 1882-04-24· cited 21×
- Osborne v. Adams CountySupreme Court· 1883-10-15· cited 13×
- Osborne v. County of AdamsSupreme Court· 1882-11-20· cited 8×
- Middleton v. Mullica TownshipSupreme Court· 1884-12-08· cited 1×
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.