Skip to main content
· 3/11/1907

Martin v. District of Columbia

Citations

  • 205 U.S. 135
  • 27 S. Ct. 440
  • 51 L. Ed. 743
  • 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1440

Syllabus

<p>Constitutional rights like others are matters of degree and a street opening statute which has stood for a long time will not be declared unconstitutional as taking property without compensation because in a particular instance the amount assessed under the strict- letter of the statute exceeded the value of the property, but the statute should be 'so interpreted, as is possible in this case, so that the apportionment of. damages be limited to the benefit.</p>

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating, in dicta, that certain height restrictions would result in a taking requiring just compensation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Holmes, Harlan, White, McKenna

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.