Berman v. Parker
Significance, Rebuilding The Nation's Capital, There Are No Limits On The Public's Needs
Berman and other owners of a department store in Washington, D.C.
The National Capital Planning Commission, the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency
The government's taking of their store was unconstitutional because it was contrary to the guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Chief Lawyers for Appellants
James C. Toomey, Joseph H. Schneider, Albert Ginsberg
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
Simon Sobeloff, Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas (writing for the Court), Felix Frankfurter, Sherman Minton, Stanley Forman Reed, Earl Warren
None (John Marshall Harlan II not yet appointed)
Date of Decision
22 November 1954
Congress and its agencies (which functioned as the District's local government) may take appellants' department store and the land as long as they pay compensation to the owners.
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
- Ball, Howard, and Philip Cooper. Of Power and Right: Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, and America's Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
- Duram, James C. Justice William O. Douglas. Boston: Twayne, 1981.
- Simon, James. Independent Journey: The Life of William O. Douglas. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.
- Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines - Significance, When May A State Regulate Interstate Commerce?, Illinois' Peculiar Mudguards, Small Benefits Do Not Justify Great Costs
- Bartkus v. Illinois - Significance, The Bill Of Rights Does Not Restrict The States, Double Jeopardy Is Wholly Uncivilized
- Berman v. Parker - Significance
- Berman v. Parker - Rebuilding The Nation's Capital
- Berman v. Parker - There Are No Limits On The Public's Needs
- Other Free Encyclopedias