Citation network
United States Vs. Causby
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 27, 1946
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 256 (1946) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CausbySearch
-
U.S. 256 (1946) United States v. CausbySearch
-
It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken. United States v. MillerSearch
-
value may reflect the use to which the land could readily be converted, as well as the existing use. United States v. PowelsonSearch
-
It would not be a case of incidental damages arising from a legalized nuisance, such as was involved in Richards v. WashingtonSearch
-
Hotel Co. v. PageSearch
-
U.S. at 260 U. S. 330 . And see Delta Air Corp. v. KerseySearch
-
owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land. See Hinman v. PacificSearch
-
In this case, as in Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
were the product of a direct invasion of respondents' domain. Page 328 U. S. 266 As stated in United States v. CressSearch
-
We said in United States v. PowelsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
not decide whether repeated trespasses might give rise to an implied contract. Cf. Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
and within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims to hear and determine. See Hollister v. BenedictSearch
-
accurate description of the property taken is essential, since that interest vests in the United States. United States v. CressSearch
-
taken was permanent. But the deficiency in findings cannot be rectified by statements in the opinion. United States v. Esnault-PelterieSearch
-
United States v. SeminoleSearch
-
evidence to determine whether it would support such a finding, if made. For that is not our function. United States v. Esnault-PelterieSearch
-
Civil Aeronautics Board where, as in the present case, there are no Army or Navy regulations to the contrary. Cameron v. CivilSearch
-
The destruction of all uses of the property by flooding has been held to constitute a taking. Pumpelly v. GreenSearch
-
It was stated in United States v. GeneralSearch
-
merely destroyed property. It is using a part of it for the flight of its planes. Cf. Warren Township School Dist. v. DetroitSearch
-
Smith v. NewSearch
-
Burnham v. BeverlySearch
-
Meyer v. MetzlerSearch
-
Codman v. EvansSearch
-
Harrington v. McCarthySearch
-
It was held in Butler v. FrontierSearch
-
Hotel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CommodoreSearch
-
Neiswonger v. GoodyearSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CausbySearch
-
United States v. MillerSearch
-
United States v. PowelsonSearch
-
Richards v. WashingtonSearch
-
of Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. PageSearch
-
Delta Air Corp. v. KerseySearch
-
See Hinman v. PacificSearch
-
Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
See Hollister v. BenedictSearch
-
the United States. United States v. CressSearch
-
Cameron v. CivilSearch
-
Pumpelly v. GreenSearch
-
United States v. GeneralSearch
-
Cf. Warren Township School Dist. v. DetroitSearch
-
Butler v. FrontierSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial