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
How later courts described this case
- 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
- identifying the pragmatic concern that under petitioners’ conception of takings, “governmental bodies would be liable . . . every time policemen break down the doors of buildings to foil burglars thought to be inside”
- 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
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Justice Black,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas joins,
dissenting.
The Court says that: “Shortly after midnight, Colonel Sachse moved his troops inside the three buildings [which included the two buildings for which compensation is here sought] so that the men might be better protected from the sniper fire.” Ante, at 87. The Army selected those two buildings to protect itself while carrying out its mission of safeguarding the entire zone from the rioters. Thus, the Army made the two buildings the particular targets of the rioters and the buildings suffered heavy damage. The Army’s action was taken not to save the buildings but to use them as a shelter and fortress from which, as the Court of Claims found, “to seal off the border from further incursions by the rioters into the Atlantic portion of the Canal Zone.” 184 Ct. Cl. 427 , 438, 396 F. 2d 467 , 474 (1968). At that time, I think it can hardly be said that these private buildings were taken for the good of the owners. Instead, the taking by the Army was for the benefit of the public generally. I still feel that “the guiding principle should be this: Whenever the Government determines that one person’s property — whatever it may be — is essential to the war effort and appropriates it for the common good, the public purse, rather than the individual, should bear the loss.” United States v. Caltex, Inc., 344 U. S. 149, 156 (1952) (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas).