Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Significance, Supreme Court Rules That Public Purpose, Not Public Use, Determines Constitutionality Of A Government Taking Of Land
Appellant
Hawaii Housing Authority
Appellee
Frank E. Midkiff
Appellant's Claim
That the Hawaii Land Reform Act of 1967, which uses condemnation procedures to redistribute landholdings, violates the Fifth Amendment requirement that government takings must be for public use.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Lawrence H. Tribe
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Clinton R. Ashford
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Warren E. Burger, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White
Justices Dissenting
None (Thurgood Marshall did not participate)
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
30 May 1984
Decision
Finding that there needs only to be a rational relationship between the taking and some purpose that will benefit the public, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the act.
Sources
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1986.
Additional topics
- Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - Significance, Privacy And The Right To Respond, At The Schoolhouse Gate, A Better Civics Lesson
- Hartford Wells Fargo Trial: 1988-89 - The Perfect Crime?, Background To The Robbery, Trial Focuses On Conspiracy, Mystery And Controversy Linger On
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Further Readings
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Significance
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Supreme Court Rules That Public Purpose, Not Public Use, Determines Constitutionality Of A Government Taking Of Land
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - Related Cases
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff - The Public Use Clause
- Other Free Encyclopedias
Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988