O'Neill v. Leamer

29 Citing cases

  1. Baker v. Carr

    369 U.S. 186 (1962)   Cited 5,316 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge Tennessee's apportionment of state representatives when that apportionment "effect[ed] a gross disproportion of representation to voting population"

    The Court has since refused to resort to the Guaranty Clause — which alone had been invoked for the purpose — as the source of a constitutional standard for invalidating state action. See Taylor Marshall v. Beckham ( No. 1), 178 U.S. 548 (claim that Kentucky's resolution of contested gubernatorial election deprived voters of republican government held nonjusticiable); Pacific States Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (claim that initiative and referendum negated republican government held nonjusticiable); Kiernan v. Portland, 223 U.S. 151 (claim that municipal charter amendment per municipal initiative and referendum negated republican government held nonjusticiable); Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250 (claim that Indiana's constitutional amendment procedure negated republican government held nonjusticiable); O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244 (claim that delegation to court of power to form drainage districts negated republican government held "futile"); Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, 241 U.S. 565 (claim that invalidation of state reapportionment statute per referendum negates republican government held nonjusticiable);Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219 (claim that workmen's compensation violates republican government held nonjusticiable); Ohio ex rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park District, 281 U.S. 74 (claim that rule requiring invalidation of statute by all but one justice of state court negated republican government held nonjusticiable); Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 U.S. 608 (claim that delegation to agency of power to control milk prices violated republican government, rejected). But cf. Hawke v. Smith ( No. 1), 253 U.S. 221; National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350.

  2. Kelo v. City of New London

    545 U.S. 469 (2005)   Cited 557 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the condemnation of property for private economic development is a "public use"

    See also Clark, 198 U.S., at 367-368; Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531 (1906) ("In the opinion of the legislature and the Supreme Court of Utah the public welfare of that State demands that aerial lines between the mines upon its mountain sides and railways in the valleys below should not be made impossible by the refusal of a private owner to sell the right to cross his land. The Constitution of the United States does not require us to say that they are wrong"); O'Neill v. Learner, 239 U S. 244, 253 (1915) ("States may take account of their special exigencies, and when the extent of their arid or wet lands is such that a plan for irrigation or reclamation according to districts may fairly be regarded as one which promotes the public interest, there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which denies to them the right to formulate this policy or to exercise the power of eminent domain in carrying it into effect. With the local situation the state court is peculiarly familiar and its judgment is entitled to the highest respect").

  3. In re Price Drug Co.

    19 F.2d 269 (E.D. Mo. 1927)

    The Missouri statute provides that unrecorded conditional sale agreements shall be void as to subsequent creditors, while the Kansas statute, in the section cited by the Supreme Court in the Bailey Case, supra, provides simply that such unrecorded liens shall be void asto creditors without differentiation touching whether the creditors are antecedent or subsequent. It may be regretted, for that it creates doubt that the substance of the Kansas statute as set out by the Supreme Court in the Bailey Case (loc. cit. 275 [ 36 S. Ct. 54]) does not accurately quote such statute. But, be this as it may be, the Supreme Court took occasion to construe in that case section 47a, supra, which is the identical statute involved here.

  4. Prucka v. Eastern Sarpy Drainage Dist

    157 Neb. 284 (Neb. 1953)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining de facto officer doctrine

    " O'Neill v. Leamer, 93 Neb. 786, 142 N.W. 112, affirmed in 239 U.S. 244, 36 S.Ct. 54, 60 L.Ed. 249, was a suit to enjoin the supervisors of a drainage district from proceeding further with construction of a ditch across plaintiff's land. In that opinion it is said: "The plaintiffs contend that the drainage district was not regularly organized, and seem to insist that the proceedings were so defective that the court was without jurisdiction, and the district is not even a de facto corporation.

  5. Wilton et al. v. County St. Johns

    98 Fla. 26 (Fla. 1928)   Cited 91 times
    In Wilton v. County of St. Johns, 98 Fla. 26, 123 So. 527, 65 A.L.R., 488, it was held that, "where law says that private property may be taken for public use, only when it is necessary for such use, it means a reasonable, not an absolute, necessity."

    Cooley's Const. Lim. 8th ed., 1124; 10 R. C. L. 27; 20 C. J. 548; note to Re Tuthill, 49 L.R.A., 781. To do so would also come in conflict with the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, as a deprivation of property without due process of law. O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244, 60 Law ed., 249; Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 41 Law ed. 369. The use may, however, be local or limited, and yet be a public use.

  6. Ashton v. Cameron County Dist

    298 U.S. 513 (1936)   Cited 124 times
    Holding that amendment to Bankruptcy Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon state sovereignty

    Irrigation, drainage, and related public projects are all State governmental functions. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112; O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244; Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U.S. 254. The Maintenance of the faith and credit of the State involves the maintenance of the faith and credit of its political subdivisions.

  7. Roberts v. New York City

    295 U.S. 264 (1935)   Cited 43 times
    In Roberts v. New York City, 295 U.S. 264, 55 S.Ct. 689, 79 L.Ed. 1429, upon which the Government particularly relies, the court upheld a finding that the franchise to operate an elevated railroad had no value, and that it was proper to allow recovery for the structure only on its value as scrap.

    Notwithstanding the state courts may have committed errors of law or fact, or applied erroneous principles of valuation, if the record, as in this case, contains all the evidence proffered by the claimants, this Court should not hold that due process has been denied, unless on the whole record it concludes the award does not approximate fair compensation computed on correct principles. Chicago, B. Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 246; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U.S. 557, 565; Appleby v. Buffalo, 221 U.S. 524; McGovern v. New York City, 229 U.S. 363, 370; Seattle, R. S. Ry. Co. v. Washington ex rel. Linhoff, 231 U.S. 568; O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244, 249; Olson v. United States, 292 U.S. 246, 259, note 3; Los Angeles Gas Electric Corp. v. Railroad Comm'n, 289 U.S. 287, 304; West Ohio Gas Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n, 294 U.S. 63, 79. As the spur was found by the state tribunals, on abundant evidence, to be no longer a public convenience, and to have permanently ceased to produce enough revenue for the system of which it was a part to pay the cost of operation, and had ceased to have any value for railway purposes, the reproduction cost basis of valuation must be discarded.

  8. Ohio v. Akron Park District

    281 U.S. 74 (1930)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that "the right of appeal is not essential to due process, provided that due process has already been accorded in the tribunal of first instance"

    As to the guaranty to every State of a republican form of government (Sec. 4, Art. IV), it is well settled that the questions arising under it are political, not judicial, in character and thus are for the consideration of the Congress and not the courts. Pacific States Telephone Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118; O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244, 248; State of Ohio ex rel. Davis v. Hildebrant, Secretary of State of Ohio, 241 U.S. 565; Mountain Timber Co. v. State of Washington, 243 U.S. 219, 234. As to the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is sufficient to say that, as frequently determined by this Court, the right of appeal is not essential to due process, provided that due process has already been accorded in the tribunal of first instance. McKane v. Durston, 153 U.S. 684, 687; Pittsburgh, etc. Railway Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421, 427; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 508; Rogers v. Peck, 199 U.S. 425, 435; Standard Oil Company of Indiana v. State of Missouri, 224 U.S. 270, 286.

  9. Jones v. City of Portland

    245 U.S. 217 (1917)   Cited 69 times
    In Jones v. Portland, supra, this Court held that the business of furnishing fuel to the citizens of Portland, Maine, was a public use, and that it was within the province of the State to provide by statute for the establishment of municipal fuel yards.

    In Union Lime Co. v. Chicago Northwestern Ry. Co., 233 U.S. 211, this court declared that a decision of the highest court of the State declaring a use to be public in its nature would be accepted unless clearly not well founded, citing Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 160; Clark v. Nash, 198 U.S. 361, 369; Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527, 531; Offield v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co., 203 U.S. 372, 377; Hairston v. Danville Western Ry. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 607. This doctrine was reiterated in O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244, 253. In the case of Laughlin v. City of Portland, 111 Maine, supra, the matter was fully considered by the Supreme Judicial Court of that State. After reviewing the cases which established the general authority of municipalities in the interest of the public health, convenience, and welfare to make provisions for supplying the inhabitants of such communities with water, light and heat by means adequate for that purpose, the court came to consider the distinction sought to be made between the cases which sustain the authority of the State to authorize municipal action for the purposes stated, and the one under consideration, because of the fact that in the instances in which municipal authority had been sustained the use of the public streets and highways for mains, poles and wires in the distribution of water, light and heat had been required under public authority, whereas in supplying fuel to consumers, under the terms of the law in question, no such permission was essential, the court

  10. Hendersonville Light & Power Co. v. Blue Ridge Interurban Railway Co.

    243 U.S. 563 (1917)   Cited 5 times

    The local conditions are to be considered in passing on the reasonableness and validity of the law allowing condemnation. Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527; Wurts v. Hoagland, 114 U.S. 229; O'Neill v. Leamer, 239 U.S. 244. The mere fact that the use may be in part private does not prevent condemnation.