“When this seemingly absolute protection [of property] is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears.” (quoting Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.Ct. 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922) (Holmes, J.))
How later courts described this case
- “When this seemingly absolute protection [of property] is found to be qualified by the police power, the natural tendency of human nature is to extend the qualification more and more until at last private property disappears.” (quoting Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 43 S.Ct. 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922) (Holmes, J.))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*599 Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen :
I cannot conclude that tbe small taking here affected tbe ingress to or egress from plaintiff’s land. On tbe contrary, tbe testimony clearly shows that tbe taking was in no way related to tbe installation of the curbing. Since there was no taking, tbe rule established in F-K Market House Co., Inc. v. Reading, 310 Pa. 493 , 165 Atl. 398 (1933) applies. I would reverse and grant a new trial: Johnson’s Petition, 344 Pa. 5 , 23 A. 2d 880 (1942).