United States v. Carmack
Citations
- 329 U.S. 230
- 67 S. Ct. 252
- 91 L. Ed. 209
- 1946 U.S. LEXIS 2996
About this case
United States v. Carmack
United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 (1946), was a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the United States federal government was empowered by Condemnation Act of August 1, 1888; the Public Buildings Act of 1926; and the United States Constitution to exercise its right of eminent domain over land containing buildings owned by a state or local government.[1]
English Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Contents
Background
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: Background")
The Carmack family owned substantial tracts of land in which would eventually become the city of Cape Girardeau, Missouri . In 1807, the Carmack family conveyed, in trust, title to a plot of land to the City of Cape Girardeau with the restriction that the land only be used for public purposes.[2] An adjacent plot of land was also conveyed in trust in 1820, with an identical restriction.[2]
In the late 1930s, pursuant to their authority under the Condemnation Act of 1888 and the Public Buildings Act of 1926, the site was selected by the Federal Works Agency and the United States Postmaster General as the site for a future federal courthouse and a federal post office.[3] In 1941, the United States sought permission to condemn that land and exercise its right of eminent domain from a United States district court .[4] After judicial proceedings, the condemnation was approved. Iska W. Carmack, an heir of the Carmack family; the City of Cape Girardeau; and the state of Missouri contested the decision, but the district court held that Carmack had no right to contest the proceedings. All three parties appealed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and ordered the district court to reconsider the case and to include Carmack as a respondent.[5]
In 1944, the district court held a second set of condemnation proceedings, and this time concluded that the United States had arbitrarily and capriciously selected the site in disregard for federal law and regulation.[6] The United States appealed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court, but on different grounds. The appellate court said that the Federal Works Agency and the Postmaster General did not have the statutory authority to begin condemnation proceedings.[7]
The United States appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari .
Decision
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: Decision")
Majority opinion
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: Majority opinion")
In an opinion by Associate Justice Harold Hitz Burton , the unanimous Court reaffirmed the concept of eminent domain , recognizing the power of the government to seize land according to the Condemnation Act and Public Buildings Act. Burton asserted that the Court, far removed from the date of enactment of these laws, must be slow to read into them any limitation on public officials not expressly provided for by the acts.[8] The majority also held as settled the concept (enunciated in _Kohl v. United States _, 91 U.S. 367 (1875)) that the federal government need not seek to enforce its eminent domain rights solely in state courts.[9]
It made little difference whether the federal government sought to condemn private or public land, Burton concluded.[10] Nor did it matter that the land was held by the state in trust, for the federal government had notified all title holders of its decision to condemn the land.[11] Burton reviewed the constitutional grants of power which gave the United States the power of eminent domain and concluded that this power was supreme:[12]
The considerations that made it appropriate for the Constitution to declare that the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land make it appropriate to recognize that the power of eminent domain, when exercised by Congress within its constitutional powers, be equally supreme.[13]
Unwilling to read into the Condemnation Act or the Public Buildings Act limitations which were not there, Burton analyzed the process by which federal officials had chosen the site in question, and concluded that it represented a rational and reasonable exercise of the government's powers.[14]
Concurrence
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=4 "Edit section: Concurrence")
Associate Justice William O. Douglas concurred in the result and the opinion of the Court, but reserved judgment "as to the circumstances under which authority to condemn land owned by a city or a state should be inferred from a general condemnation statute if the local government challenged the taking."[15]
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=5 "Edit section: See also")
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=6 "Edit section: References")
- ↑ Dimitrakopoulos, Dionyssis G. Individual Rights and Liberties Under the U.S. Constitution: The Case Law of the U.S. Supreme Court. Boston: M. Nijhoff, 2007, p. 820.
- 1 2 United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 234 (1946).
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 232.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 233.
- ↑ Carmack v. United States, 135 F.2d 196 (1943).
- ↑ United States v. Certain Land, Etc., 55 F.Supp. 555 (1944).
- ↑ United States v. Carmack, 151 F.2d 881 (8th Cir. 1945).
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 236.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 237.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 238-239.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 239.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 240-243.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 240.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 243-248.
- ↑ Carmack, 329 U.S. at 248 (Douglas, J., concurring).
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_v._Carmack&action=edit§ion=7 "Edit section: External links")
- Text of United States v. Carmack, 329 [U.S.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reports "United States R
…
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
Judges: Burton, Douglas
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
226 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court· 1954-11-22· cited 1,131×
- Block v. North Dakota Ex Rel. Board of University & School LandsSupreme Court· 1983-05-02· cited 1,009×
- United States v. RodgersSupreme Court· 1983-05-31· cited 801×
- Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset ValleyTexas Supreme Court· 2004-09-24· cited 756×
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Boston & Maine Corp.Supreme Court· 1992-03-25· cited 341×
- California v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 237×
- United States v. 50 Acres of LandSupreme Court· 1984-12-04· cited 189×
- Bundo v. City of Walled LakeMichigan Supreme Court· 1976-01-27· cited 142×
- In Re the Welfare of SumeyWashington Supreme Court· 1980-12-04· cited 139×
- Matagorda County v. Russell LawFifth Circuit· 1994-04-21· cited 124×
- United States v. 416.81 Acres of Land, Etc., and Mercantile National Bank of Indiana, as TrusteeSeventh Circuit· 1975-04-22· cited 107×
- Goolsby v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court· 1984-12-10· cited 107×
- Pheasant Ridge Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Town of BurlingtonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1987-04-30· cited 94×
- VanZandt v. State Employees' Retirement SystemMichigan Court of Appeals· 2005-08-03· cited 89×
- In Re Application A-16642Nebraska Supreme Court· 1990-11-30· cited 87×
- The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District v. The City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, Sherrell Construction, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri· 2016-01-12· cited 82×
- Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or LessThird Circuit· 2014-09-26· cited 75×
- United States of America Ex Rel. Clinton Burnett v. People of the State of IllinoisSeventh Circuit· 1980-04-22· cited 74×
- State v. LanzaSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1958-06-27· cited 68×
- Board of Water Works Trustees of the City of Des Moines, Iowa v. Sac County Board of Supervisors, as Trustee of Drainage Districts 32, 42, 65, 79, 81, 83, 86, and Calhoun County Board of Supervisors and Sac County Board of Supervisors as Joint Trustees of Drainage Districts 2 and 51 and Buena Vista County Board of Supervisors and Sac County Board of Supervisors as Joint Trustees of Drainage Districts 19Supreme Court of Iowa· 2017-01-27· cited 60×
Cites
28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Boom Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court· 1879-03-18· cited 568×
- Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1890-05-19· cited 284×
- Rindge Co. v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 255×
- Joslin Manufacturing Co. v. City of ProvidenceSupreme Court· 1923-06-11· cited 219×
- Bragg v. WeaverSupreme Court· 1919-12-08· cited 210×
- United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. WelchSupreme Court· 1946-03-25· cited 193×
- Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1923-04-09· cited 132×
- Luxton v. North River Bridge Co.Supreme Court· 1894-05-14· cited 71×
- Sears v. City of AkronSupreme Court· 1918-03-04· cited 64×
- Stockton v. Baltimore & N. Y. R.U.S. Circuit Court· 1887-08-01· cited 55×
- United States v. Eighty Acres of Land in Williamson CountyE.D. Illinois· 1939-01-28· cited 28×
- Fox Film Corporation v. TrumbullD. Connecticut· 1925-08-17· cited 26×
- Mott v. MorrisSupreme Court of Missouri· 1913-03-28· cited 21×
- In re Condemnations for Improvement of Rouge RiverE.D. Michigan· 1920-05-21· cited 20×
- United States v. City of TiffinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio· 1911-09-28· cited 20×
- Elbert v. Los Angeles Gas Co.California Supreme Court· 1893-01-21· cited 18×
- United States v. State of MontanaNinth Circuit· 1943-03-16· cited 17×
- Board of Regents for Normal School District No. 3 v. PainterSupreme Court of Missouri· 1890-10-15· cited 17×
- Carmack v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1943-04-26· cited 16×
- C. M. Patten & Co. Et Al. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1933-05-08· cited 15×
Other cases named United States v. Carmack
6 other CourtListener records share this case name.
- United States v. CarmackEighth Circuit· 1945-11-06· cited 9×
- United States v. CarmackU.S. Army Court of Military Review· 1993-06-21· cited 2×
- United States v. CarmackSupreme Court· 1947-02-03· cited 1×
- United States v. CarmackNavy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals· 2020-06-08
- United States v. CarmackSixth Circuit· 1937-04-13
- United States v. CarmackSupreme Court· 1946-04-22
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.