Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923)

Name: Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923) - Syllabus
Author: U.S. Supreme Court

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 262 U.S. 695, click here.

Rindge Company v. County of Los Angeles

No. 237

Argued April 26, 1923
Decided June 11, 1923
262 U.S. 700

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND APPELLATE

DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

1. Whether a use for which private property is taken is public or private is a judicial question the determination of which is influenced by local conditions, and this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions, and regard with great respect the judgment of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses. P. 705.

2. It is not essential that the entire community, or even a considerable portion, should directly enjoy an improvement in order to constitute a public use. P. 706.

3. A taking of land for a highway extension is a taking for a public use, even though the extension he wholly within the tract of a single landowner and terminate at his boundaries and connect with no public road save at its beginning, if it be susceptible of present use not only by those gaining access from the highway, but by persons living on or adjacent to the tract with access by private ways, and of future use by those living beyond its terminus, through future road construction. P. 706.

4. A highway may be legally laid out extending to a state or county line even though there be at the time no connecting highway in the adjoining state or county in reasonable anticipation of future connections and future public use. P. 707.

5. Public use of a road is not limited to its use as a mere business necessity or ordinary convenience, but includes its use as a scenic highway for the public enjoyment, recreation, and health. P. 707.

6. The necessity for appropriating private property for a public use is a legislative question which may be determined by a municipality to which the legislature has delegated the power, and the Fourteenth Amendment does not entitle the owner to a hearing before the determination is made. P. 708.

53 Cal.App. 166 affirmed.

Error to judgments of the District Court of Appeal of California which affirmed judgments condemning private lands as county highways.

Contents:

Related Resources

None available for this document.

Download Options

Title: Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923)

Select an option:

*Note: A download may not start for up to 60 seconds.

Email Options

Title: Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923)

Select an option:

Email addres:

*Note: It may take up to 60 seconds for for the email to be generated.

Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923) in 262 U.S. 700 262 U.S. 701. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5QW4M55EHSNMV28.

MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923), in 262 U.S. 700, page 262 U.S. 701. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5QW4M55EHSNMV28.

Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923). cited in 1923, 262 U.S. 700, pp.262 U.S. 701. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=5QW4M55EHSNMV28.

General Summary