Legal Opinion

Matthews v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided May 31, 1938No. 42408PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLittleton, Judge

If there has been a taking by the United States under the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution of any property or valuable property rights of plaintiff in and to any of the 20,064.69 acres of timber land involved in this controversy for which a contract to pay just compensation may be implied, such taking must be held to have resulted solely and exclusively from the declared purpose of the United States as expressed in the Act of May 15, 1928, herein referred to as the Flood Control Act, to reduce the height of the riverside levee whenever that should be found to be necessary after the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Manigault v. SpringsSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  2. Mitchell v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Gibson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
  4. Board of Trade of Chicago v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  5. Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1922

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Deltona Corp. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
  2. National By-Products, Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
  3. Loesch v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1981
  4. Todd v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1961
  5. Yazel v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1950

12 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