Kimball Laundry Company v. United States/Concurrence Rutledge

by Wiley Blount Rutledge

United States Supreme Court

338 U.S. 1

Kimball Laundry Company  v.  United States

 Argued: Dec. 7, 8, 1948. --- Decided: June 27, 1949

Mr. Justice RUTLEDGE, concurring.

As I understand the opinion of t e Court, its effect is simply to recognize that short-term takings of property entail considerations not present where complete title has been taken. Rules developed for the simple situation in which all the owner's interests in the property have been irrevocably severed should not be forced to fit the more complex consequences of a piecemeal taking of successive short-term interests. Such takings may involved compensable elements that in the nature of things are not present where the whole is taken.

With this much I agree. But having recognized the possible compensability of intangible interests, I would not subscribe to a formulation of theoretical rules defining their nature or prescribing their measurement. What seems theoretically sound may prove unworkable for judicial administration. But I do not understand the opinion of the Court to do more than indicate possible approaches to the compensation of such interests. Since remand of the case will permit the empirical testing of these approaches, I join in the Court's opinion.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice BLACK and Mr. Justice REED concur, dissenting.

Notes