Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago
Encyclopedia
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226
(1897), incorporated the takings clause of the 5th amendment into the due process clause of the 14th amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation
for seizing private property. This was the first supreme court case that incorporated an amendment of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this case, the Bill of Rights was considered to only apply to the Federal government.
. In a jury trial, the jury awarded fair compensation to the individual land owners for condemning their lots, and awarded the railroad company one dollar ($1.00) for appropriating the right of way for its property (166 U.S. 226, 230). The railroad company appealed.
The City of Chicago contended that due process of law was purely procedural and only required allowing the railroad company's case to be heard: "the question as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the railroad company was one of local law merely, and...the company appearing and having full opportunity to be heard, the requirement of due process of law was observed" (166 U.S. 226, 233).
delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Brewer
was the sole dissenter, and Chief Justice Fuller took no part.
Having decided that the state is required to give just compensation after seizing private property for public use, the majority then found that just compensation had in fact been given to the railroad company by the state in this case.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1897), incorporated the takings clause of the 5th amendment into the due process clause of the 14th amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation
Just compensation
Just Compensation is required to be paid by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when private property is taken for public use...
for seizing private property. This was the first supreme court case that incorporated an amendment of the Bill of Rights. Prior to this case, the Bill of Rights was considered to only apply to the Federal government.
Facts of the Case
The Chicago city council decided on October 9, 1880 to widen Rockwell Street, which required appropriating land owned by private individuals, as well as the right of way for property owned by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad CompanyChicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad
The Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad was a railroad that operated in the Midwestern United States. Commonly referred to as the Burlington or as the Q, the Burlington Route served a large area, including extensive trackage in the states of Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri,...
. In a jury trial, the jury awarded fair compensation to the individual land owners for condemning their lots, and awarded the railroad company one dollar ($1.00) for appropriating the right of way for its property (166 U.S. 226, 230). The railroad company appealed.
The City of Chicago contended that due process of law was purely procedural and only required allowing the railroad company's case to be heard: "the question as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the railroad company was one of local law merely, and...the company appearing and having full opportunity to be heard, the requirement of due process of law was observed" (166 U.S. 226, 233).
Opinion of the Court
Justice HarlanJohn Marshall Harlan
John Marshall Harlan was a Kentucky lawyer and politician who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. He is most notable as the lone dissenter in the Civil Rights Cases , and Plessy v...
delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Brewer
David Josiah Brewer
David Josiah Brewer was an American jurist and an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for 20 years.-Early life:...
was the sole dissenter, and Chief Justice Fuller took no part.
"Regard must be had to substance, not to form"
Justice Harlan argued that the concept of due process of law required that fair compensation be given for any private property seized by the state. In responding to the City of Chicago's claim that due process of law was served merely by allowing the railroad company's grievance to be heard, Justice Harlan states that satisfying legislative procedure alone is not enough to satisfy due process, writing that "In determining what is due process of law, regard must be had to substance, not to form" (166 U.S. 226, 235). Harlan then claims that part of this 'substance' of due process requires the legislation to provide for fair compensation for private property, writing that"Wanting in the due process of law required by the fourteenth amendment"
After determining just compensation was therefore required for a conception of due process of law, the court for the first time incorporated an amendment into the 14th amendment's due process clause when Justice Harlan wroteHaving decided that the state is required to give just compensation after seizing private property for public use, the majority then found that just compensation had in fact been given to the railroad company by the state in this case.
Dissent
In his dissent, Justice Brewer agreed that the due process of law required just compensation, but disagreed with the majority finding that just compensation had indeed been given to the railroad, arguing that the one dollar in compensation given to the railroad was merely nominal. In response to the majority opinion, Justice Brewer wrote that:Historical importance
This case incorporated the Takings clause of the 5th amendment into the due process clause of 14th amendment, and was the first to incorporate any amendment of the Bill of Rights and apply it against the States.See also
- Chicago B. & Q.R. Co. v. KrayenbuhlChicago B. & Q.R. Co. v. KrayenbuhlChicago B. & Q.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl 65 Neb. 899, 91 N.W. 880. was a case that established negligent liability on a railroad company....
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 166
- Incorporation of the Bill of Rights