Richards v. Washington Terminal Co

Richards v. Washington Terminal Company, 233 U.S. 546 (1914), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States resolving the question when a government-created nuisance amounted to a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause of the United States Constitution.

Richards v. Washington Terminal Company
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case nameWebster Richards v. Washington Terminal Company
Citations233 U.S. 546 (more)
Richards v. Washington Terminal Co., 233 U.S. 546 (1914)
Holding
Any diminution of the value of property not directly invaded nor peculiarly affected, but sharing in the common burden of incidental damages arising from a legalized nuisance, is not a taking.
Case opinions
MajorityJustice Mahlon Pitney
DissentJustice Lurton
Laws applied
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Facts and holding

In Richards, the Court in a 8-1 decision, held that any diminution of the value of property not directly invaded nor peculiarly affected by a government-created nuisance, but instead sharing in the common burden of incidental damages arising from the legalized nuisance, is not a taking under the U.S. Constitution.[1]

The case involved a landowner who claimed that they were injured from the smoke, dust, cinders, and gases emitted from the defendant's railroad which abutted the landowner's property.[2] The Court found no taking from the injuries that the plaintiff were suffered common to the public. However, because the railroad tunnel adjoining the landowner's property had a fanning system, which directed gases and dust onto the landowner's property, a taking occurred.[2] Due to this holding, Richards is an important case addressing what legal rule should be applied when determining whether a government-created nuisance constitutes a taking under the U.S. Constitution and takings clauses in state constitutions.[3][4][5]

See also
  • Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College

References
  1. Richards v. Washington Terminal Company, 233 U.S. 546, 554 (1914)
  2. Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law § 10:3, Physical invasions as takings, (3d ed. 2022)
  3. Richardson, Jesse (2000). "Nuisance Revisited After Buchanan and Bormann". Ag. Law. Journal.
  4. Spater, George A. (1965). "Noise and the Law". Michigan Law Review. 63 (8): 1373–1410. doi:10.2307/1287050. ISSN 0026-2234. JSTOR 1287050.
  5. Gerald L. Hallworth, Judicial Legislation in Airport Litigation--A Blessing or Danger, 39 Notre Dame L. Rev. 411 (1964). Available at:
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.