United States v. Carmack

Infobox SCOTUS case
Litigants = United States v. Carmack
ArgueDate = October 18
ArgueYear = 1946
DecideDate = December 9
DecideYear = 1946
FullName = United States v. Carmack
USVol = 329
USPage = 230
Citation =
Prior =
Subsequent =
Holding = The court reiterated the concept of eminent domain, recognizing the power of the court to seize land according to the Condemnation Act and Public Buildings Act.
SCOTUS = 1946-1949
Majority = Burton
JoinMajority =
Concurrence =
JoinConcurrence =
Concurrence2 =
JoinConcurrence2 =
Concurrence/Dissent =
JoinConcurrence/Dissent =
Dissent =
JoinDissent =
Dissent2 =
JoinDissent2 =
LawsApplied =

"United States v. Carmack", 329 U.S. 230 (1946) was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Opinions: Burton (Opinion)

Facts of the Case: The land in question was condemned to build a public post office and customhouse. However, this land was already employed as a public park, courthouse, city hall, memorials, etc. Respondent was a citizen of the community and thus benefited from the public uses of the land; originally the respondent was denied “special interest in the property.” A retrial recognized her right to suit, and also ruled in her favor against the taking of the land.

The Court’s Ruling:The court reiterated the concept of eminent domain, recognizing the power of the court to seize land according to the Condemnation Act and Public Buildings Act. The fact that the land is already owned by the government, and being used for public purpose currently has no bearing on the legitimacy of this seizure. While the respondent pointed to the fact that the Fifth Amendment says, “nor shall private property be taken…” This doesn’t mean that only private property can be taken; rather, this word was referring to the right of eminent domain that already existed, which didn’t need to be enumerated. There is no contest to the public use of the land, as the buildings of post offices and customhouses is expressly granted in the aforementioned legislation. The respondent also argued that state, and not national, government was supreme and thus held the highest right of eminent domain; however, the court said that the national government held supreme authority over the land. "'Additional Quotations:"' “Whatever may be the necessities or conclusions of theoretical law as to eminent domain or anything else, it must be received as a postulate of the constitution that the government of the United States is invested with full and complete power to execute and carry out its purposes.”

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 329

References

* [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&friend=jurisearch&court=US&case=/us/329/230.html U.S. v. CARMACK, 329 U.S. 230 (1946)] at findlaw.com
* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/329/230/ U.S. v. CARMACK, 329 U.S. 230 (1946)] at justia.com