Mitchell v. United States
United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 341 (1925)
- Written by Robert Schefter, JD
Facts
Acting under statutory authorization, the United States (defendant) acquired land in Maryland from several landowners, including Mitchell (plaintiff), because it was necessary for military use. Mitchell had used his land to grow a special type of corn, and was unable to find another parcel of land on which to grow that type of corn. The United States paid Mitchell $76,000 for his land, but paid him no compensation for the loss of his business. Mitchell then brought suit for $100,000 in compensation for the loss of his business, claiming that he had a right to such compensation under the statute authorizing the taking and under the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled against him, and he appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brandeis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.