Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago

E137555

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago is an 1897 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a key step in applying federal constitutional protections—particularly just compensation for takings—to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (45)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
incorporation case
landmark case
alsoKnownAs Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
surface form: CB&Q v. Chicago
areaOfLaw constitutional law
eminent domain law
property law
citation 166 U.S. 226
17 S. Ct. 581
41 L. Ed. 979
compensationAwarded nominal compensation to the railroad company
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
surface form: Fifth Amendment Takings Clause

Due Process Clause
surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
country United States of America
surface form: United States
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate 1897-03-01
decisionType majority opinion
dissentBy Edward Douglass White
firstPageInUSReports 226
fullName Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago self-linksurface differs
surface form: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
holding A state court condemnation award that is not arbitrary and provides some compensation satisfies due process
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to provide just compensation when taking private property for public use
jurisdiction United States of America
surface form: United States
languageOfOpinion English
legalIssue Due Process Clause
surface form: Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause

eminent domain
just compensation
legalPrinciple Just compensation for takings is required of the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
locationOfLowerCourt Illinois
lowerCourt Illinois Supreme Court
surface form: Supreme Court of Illinois
majorityBy John Marshall Harlan
partOf Fourteenth Amendment incorporation jurisprudence
petitioner Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad
surface form: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
proceduralPosture writ of error to the Supreme Court of Illinois
publicUse opening of a public street across railroad property
relatedDoctrine selective incorporation
reporter United States Reports
respondent City of Chicago
significance Established that state takings must meet federal constitutional standards of due process
One of the earliest cases to apply a provision of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment
subjectMatter state obligation to pay just compensation for takings
subsequentHistory Frequently cited in later incorporation cases
volumeInUSReports 166
vote 7–1
yearDecided 1897

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution influencedDecision Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago fullName Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago self-linksurface differs
this entity surface form: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago alsoKnownAs Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago
this entity surface form: CB&Q v. Chicago
Barron v. Baltimore relatedCase Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. Chicago