Also known as: due compensations · just compensation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Compensation that must be paid to a property owner when the government takes private property for public use.
Daniel Diaz owns Seaside Bank. The Federal Banking Authority orders the bank to transfer eight percent of its highest-quality bonds into a government-controlled collateral pool that the agency may pledge or sell. Daniel sues, claiming the transfer requires payment of due compensation. The court holds that the mandatory surrender of specific bonds is a physical appropriation triggering the obligation to pay due compensation.
Derek Douglas owns a mobile-home park that became nonconforming after rezoning. The city ordinance requires the park to cease operations after ten years. Derek argues the fixed period is unreasonable given his recent eight-hundred-thousand-dollar investment. The court examines whether the amortization schedule amounts to a taking without due compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Dylan Duffy grows raisins. A federal marketing order requires him to set aside a portion of each crop for government use. Dylan retains only a contingent interest in any later surplus. He sues for due compensation. The court rules that the appropriation of personal property requires payment of due compensation even when a contingent interest remains.
Dustin Donovan owns coastal land. A new regulation prohibits all economically beneficial uses. Dustin claims the rule leaves the parcel valueless. The court determines that the total deprivation constitutes a per se taking requiring due compensation unless background nuisance principles already barred the use.
Doris Duffy owns a historic gallery. The city grants a union recurring access to nonpublic workshops several times each month. Doris sues, alleging the mandated access appropriates her right to exclude and requires due compensation. The court treats the recurring physical invasion as a per se taking.
Devon Drake owns waterfront property. The city condemns the parcel for transfer to a private developer under an economic revitalization plan. Devon demands due compensation measured by fair market value. The court upholds the taking for public use but requires payment of due compensation.
The government owes due compensation whenever it physically appropriates private property, including personal property, for public use. This obligation applies even when the owner retains only a contingent interest in the taken property.
Yes. The Takings Clause protects all private property, including crops, bonds, and inventory. Courts treat compelled transfers of personal property as per se takings requiring due compensation.
Yes. A regulation granting third parties recurring access to private property appropriates the owner's right to exclude and is treated as a per se taking. Due compensation is required regardless of the intermittent nature of the invasions.
…CONSIDERATIONS. Examined as an expression of public policy, the Court's new regime proves so dubious that there can be no due compensation for its weakness in constitutional law. The foregoing discussion has shown, I think, how mistaken is the Court in implying that the Constitution has struck the balance in favor of the…