Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesappealtrialjury trial

Related Cases

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854
View Case »
Sargent v. Baxter, 673 So.2d 979, 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1265
View Case »
McCoy v. Arkansas Natural Gas Co., 175 La. 487, 143 So. 383, 85 A.L.R. 1147
View Case »
Chancey v. Georgia Power Co., 238 Ga. 397, 233 S.E.2d 365
View Case »
Biggers v. Crook, 283 Ga. 50, 656 S.E.2d 835, 08 FCDR 217
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Kimball Laundry Co. v. U.S., 338 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765, 7 A.L.R.2d 1280

Facts

On November 21, 1942, the United States filed a petition to condemn the Kimball Laundry Company's plant in Omaha, Nebraska, for use by the Army. The District Court granted the United States immediate possession, and the Army operated the laundry for several years, during which the Laundry suspended its business. A board of appraisers determined just compensation, but both parties appealed, leading to a jury trial that awarded the Laundry compensation for rental and damages. The Laundry contended that it was also entitled to compensation for the loss of its trade routes and business value.

On November 21, 1942, the United States filed a petition to condemn the Kimball Laundry Company's plant in Omaha, Nebraska, for use by the Army.

Issue

Whether the Kimball Laundry Company is entitled to compensation for the loss of its trade routes and going-concern value due to the temporary taking of its property by the United States.

Whether the Kimball Laundry Company is entitled to compensation for the loss of its trade routes and going-concern value due to the temporary taking of its property by the United States.

Rule

The value compensable under the Fifth Amendment is that which is capable of transfer from owner to owner, and in cases of temporary takings, compensation should reflect the rental value that could have been obtained during the period of occupancy.

The value compensable under the Fifth Amendment is that which is capable of transfer from owner to owner, and in cases of temporary takings, compensation should reflect the rental value that could have been obtained during the period of occupancy.

Analysis

The court analyzed the nature of the taking and the compensation due, emphasizing that the temporary nature of the taking required a different approach than that used for permanent takings. It recognized that the Laundry's trade routes and going-concern value were integral to its business and that the government’s temporary occupation effectively deprived the Laundry of these assets. The court concluded that the Laundry should be compensated for the loss of these intangible values, which were not adequately addressed in the initial compensation awarded.

The court analyzed the nature of the taking and the compensation due, emphasizing that the temporary nature of the taking required a different approach than that used for permanent takings.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the value of the Laundry's trade routes and going-concern value, which should be compensated under the Fifth Amendment.

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the value of the Laundry's trade routes and going-concern value.

Who won?

The Kimball Laundry Company prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court recognized its entitlement to compensation for intangible assets lost due to the temporary taking of its property.

The Kimball Laundry Company prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court recognized its entitlement to compensation for intangible assets lost due to the temporary taking of its property.

You must be