Upload, Automoderated users, edit
78
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Barron v. Baltimore (view source)
Revision as of 04:17, September 19, 2007
, 04:17, September 19, 2007Summary of Supreme Court Case
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
In ''Barron v. Baltimore,'' 32 U.S. 243 (1833), The United States [[Supreme Court]] held that State governments are not bound by the [[Fifth Amendment]]'s ruling for compensation in cases of [[eminent domain]].
The plaintiff, a Mr. John Barrow, said that under the [[Fifth Amendment]], compensation for the injury of losing his wharf's valuable harbor space was due from the Mayor and Council of Baltimore. The City of Baltimore had redirected the water flow from the harbor while doing street construction, making the plaintiff's wharf water shallow and unusable.
The Court stated that "These amendments [about compensation for eminent domain] demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments"<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html</ref> and that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state government choices on the matter of eminent domain.
Thus, claiming to have no jurisdiction over the cause, the Court dismissed the case.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html</ref>
In ''Barron v. Baltimore,'' 32 U.S. 243 (1833), The United States [[Supreme Court]] held that State governments are not bound by the [[Fifth Amendment]]'s ruling for compensation in cases of [[eminent domain]].
The plaintiff, a Mr. John Barrow, said that under the [[Fifth Amendment]], compensation for the injury of losing his wharf's valuable harbor space was due from the Mayor and Council of Baltimore. The City of Baltimore had redirected the water flow from the harbor while doing street construction, making the plaintiff's wharf water shallow and unusable.
The Court stated that "These amendments [about compensation for eminent domain] demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments"<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html</ref> and that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict state government choices on the matter of eminent domain.
Thus, claiming to have no jurisdiction over the cause, the Court dismissed the case.<ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barronvbalt.html</ref>