United States Supreme Court
267 U.S. 341 (1925)
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
Holding and Reasoning (Brandeis, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.