Waite Vs. United States

Waite vs United States

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Feb-24-1931

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/95458

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/95458
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Feb-24-1931
Case Number: 282 U.S. 508
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Waite

Respondent

United States

Excerpt

.....cases shall be reasonable and "entire," interest on the amount of the damages should be allowed. p. 282 u. s. 509 . 69 ct.cls. 153 reversed. certiorari, post, p. 817, to review a judgment of the court of claims disallowing interest in a suit against the united states for unlicensed use of a patent. mr. justice holmes delivered the opinion of the court. this is a suit under the act of july 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 stat. 704, 705, u.s.code, title 35, § 68, to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. the liability of the united states is established by the findings of the court of claims, and is not disputed. neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered. the court of claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of certiorari was granted by this court upon that question. the government, without formally confessing error, states its belief that interest should have been allowed. page 282 u. s. 509 the statute grants "recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use." we are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation "entire." in addition to the purpose of the word adverted to in richmond screw anchor co. v. united states, 275 u. s. 331 , 275 u. s. 343 , we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the united states. see seaboard air line r. co. v. united states, 261 u. s. 299 ; brooks-scanlon corp. v. united states, 265 u. s. 106 ; liggett & myers tobacco co. v. united states, 274 u. s. 215 ; phelps v. united states, 274 u. s. 341 . judgment reversed.

Full Judgment

Waite v. United States - 282 U.S. 508 (1931)
U.S. Supreme Court Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1932)

Waite v. United States

No. 103

Submitted January 30, 1931

Decided February 24, 1931

282 U.S. 508

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CLAIMS

SYLLABUS

Under the Act of July 1, 1918, which gave a remedy against the United States for the unlicensed use of a patented invention, and provides that compensation to the owners in such cases shall be reasonable and "entire," interest on the amount of the damages should be allowed. P. 282 U. S. 509 .

69 Ct.Cls. 153 reversed.

Certiorari, post, p. 817, to review a judgment of the Court of Claims disallowing interest in a suit against the United States for unlicensed use of a patent.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is a suit under the Act of July 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 Stat. 704, 705, U.S.Code, Title 35, § 68, to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. The liability of the United States is established by the findings of the Court of Claims, and is not disputed. Neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered. The Court of Claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of certiorari was granted by this Court upon that question.

The Government, without formally confessing error, states its belief that interest should have been allowed.

Page 282 U. S. 509

The statute grants "recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use." We are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation "entire." In addition to the purpose of the word adverted to in Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 331 , 275 U. S. 343 , we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299 ; Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U. S. 106 ; Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U. S. 215 ; Phelps v. United States, 274 U. S. 341 .

Judgment reversed.

Same Parties Waite vs United States Same Subject Land Acquisition