Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States
| Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States | |
|---|---|
| Argued December 7, 1948 Decided June 27, 1949 | |
| Full case name | Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States |
| Citations | 338 U.S. 1 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. |
| Holding | |
| Loss in going concern value, though related in part to intangibles, is property capable of being destroyed by the government so as to give rise to an obligation of just compensation under the fifth amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Frankfurter, joined by Jackson, Burton, Rutledge, Murphy |
| Concurrence | Rutledge |
| Dissent | Douglas, joined by Vinson, Black, Reed |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (1949), affirmed the principle set forth in The West River Bridge Company v. Dix et al., 47 U.S. 507 (1848); that is, that intangible property rights are condemnable via the eminent domain power, and that just compensation must be given to the owners of such rights.
In this case, the United States filed a petition in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska to condemn the plant of the Kimball Laundry Company in Omaha, Nebraska, for use by the Army. After the District Court granted the United States immediate possession of the facilities of the company for the requested period, the owner of the family business claimed that he had been denied just compensation, and contended that the award should have included some allowance for diminution in the value of the business due to the destruction of its customer base.