Legal Opinion

Edward P. Stahel & Co. v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided June 28, 1948No. 46498; No. 46499; No. 46500; No. 46501; No. 46502; No. 46503; No. 46504; No. 46556; No. 46557PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMaddeN, Judge

The plaintiffs in these nine cases sue for additional compensation for raw silk acquired from them by the-Government in transactions described fully in our findings and' briefly-hereinafter in this opinion. They urge that the Government. *737“took” their silk for public use within the'meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and that the price' which it paid them for it was less than the just compensation provided in the Constitution. We have concluded that the amount which the Government paid them was, so far as concerned the principal amounts paid to each of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Clemmer Const. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1947
  2. Walker v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1946
  3. Horowitz v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1923
  4. Sanford & Brooks Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Hughes Communications Galaxy, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1992
  2. Dore v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1951
  3. Central Eureka Mining Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1956
  4. Silverberg v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  5. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass'n v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1957

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API