United States v. Rands
United States Supreme Court
389 U.S. 121, 88 S. Ct. 265, 19 L. Ed. 2d 329 (1967)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
R. B. and Josephine Rands (defendants) owned riparian property adjacent to the Columbia River in Oregon. The Rands leased the property to the state, giving the state the option to purchase the property for a contemplated industrial park and port. The state did not exercise the option. The United States (plaintiff) initiated condemnation proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon to take the Rands’s property as part of a dam and lock project on the Columbia River. The United States then conveyed the land to the state at a price much lower than that contemplated by the lease option. In the condemnation proceedings, the Rands contended that the compensable value of the land should include the contemplated usage as a port. The district court disagreed, setting the value of the land at its value for sand, gravel, and agricultural uses—roughly one-fifth of its value as a port. The Rands appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the district court’s decision and held that the compensable value of the land included the land’s access to navigable waters and, therefore, its potential use as a port. The United States appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.