James Flood and Mary Emma Stebbens, as Trustees of the Trust Created by Paragraph III of the Last Will of James L. Flood, Deceased v. United States

In this case we have to determine what is “just compensation” within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. Following its modern practice, the United States condemned here only a term for years. This practice has introduced many perplexities, some of which were dealt with by the Supreme Court in United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 1950, 339 U.S. 261 , 70 S.Ct. 644 , 94 L.Ed. 816 . See the dissenting opinion in the court below, 1 Cir., 1948, 170 F.2d 752, 756 .

It is worth while to observe that the obligation of the United States is imposed only by the general provision of Amendment V to the Constitution, “ * * nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The courts, and ultimately of course the Supreme Court of the United States, have to pour some specific meaning into this phrase “just compensation” as they pinprick out the cases one by one. The Constitution does not say that the United States must pay the reasonable “market value” of that which it takes. Sometimes market value, and no more, is not deemed to be a “just compensation”. The Supreme Court, instead of reducing “just compensation” to a pat formula, has adopted…