# National Board of Young Men's Christian Assns. v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · May 19, 1969 · 395 U.S. 85

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424039

## Case

- **Full name:** NATIONAL BOARD OF YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSNS. Et Al. v. UNITED STATES
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** May 19, 1969
- **Citations:** 395 U.S. 85; 89 S. Ct. 1511; 23 L. Ed. 2d 117; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1605
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Stewart
- **Judges:** Brennan, Stewart, Harlan, Black, Douglas
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424039

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that no compensation is required for damage to property during a riot where troops “act[ed] primarily in defense of [the owners’] buildings” and rioters would have inflicted damage on the building anyway
- holding that there was no compensation for takings liability when there was a temporary and unplanned occupation of petitioners’ build- ings by troops who “were acting primarily in defense of pe- titioners’ buildings,” rather than the “general defense” of the zone
- noting that government deprivation of property requiring Insofar as factual circumstances such as these raise a Fifth compensation normally takes from an owner use that the Amendment question, I agree with Justice SOUTER that owner may otherwise make of the property
- finding the brief occupation of a building by the United States military during a riot in Panama did not constitute a taking because the building was already under attack

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
concurring.
If United States military forces should use a building for their own purposes — as a defense bastion or command post, for example — it seems to me this would be a Fifth Amendment taking, even though the owner himself were not actually deprived of any personal use of the building. Since I do not understand the Court to hold otherwise, I join its judgment and opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9424039. Public record. Not legal advice.