us v caltex

US v CALTEX CALTEX et al. (Shell and Standard Vacuum Vacuum Oil)

:by Chief u!"ce V#$SO$

%act!: Calte&' Shell and Standard Vaccum Oil ned terminal facili"e! in *andacan' +anila at the "me f the a,ane!e a-ac u,n *earl /arbr. /arbr. The!e ere u!ed t receive' handle' and !tre ,etrleum ,rduct! frm incmin0 !hi,! and t relea!e them fr further di!tribu"n thru0hut the *hili,,ine #!land!. 1. The military !itua"n in the *hili,,ine! 0re r!e and in the face f the a,ane!e advance' the *andacan il de,!it! ere re2ui!i"ned by the U.S. Army. Army. 3. The il cm,anie! received an rder t demli!h the facili"e! and de!try all unu!ed ,etrleum ,rduct! t de,rive the enemy f a valuable l0i!"c ea,n. 4. A5er the ar' re!,ndent! demanded cm,en!a"n fr all f the ,r,erty' hich had be u!ed r de!tryed by the Army. The US 6vernment ,aid fr the ,etrleum !tc! and tran!,rta"n e2ui,ment' hich ere either u!ed r de!tryed by the Army' but it refu!ed t cm,en!ate re!,ndent! fr the de!truc"n f the facili"e!. 7. Claimin0 a cn!"tu"nal ri0ht under the %i5h Amendment (8nr !hall ,rivate ,r,erty be taen fr ,ublic u!e' ithut  9u!t cm,en!a"n) t 9u!t cm,en!a"n fr the!e facili"e!' re!,ndent! !ued in the Curt f Claim!. ;ecvery a! alled. <. The U. S. Su,reme Curt 0ranted cer"rari t revie thi! 9ud0ement. #!!ue: =O$ the ,rivate re!,ndent! are en"tled t 9u!t cm,en!a"n. ;ulin0: $. The ud0ement a! revered. The Su,reme Curt held that the ,rinci,le laid dn by u!"ce %ield in US v Pacifc Railroad   mu!t 0vern thi! ca!e. #n that ca!e' it invlved brid0e! hich had been de!tryed durin0 the ar beteen the !tate! by a retrea"n0 $rthern Army t im,ede the advance f the Cnfederate Cnfederate Army. Army. #t a! held in that ca!e that 8The de!truc"n r in9ury f ,rivate ,r,erty in ba-le' r in the bmbardment f ci"e! and tn!' and in many ther ay! in the ar' ar' had t be brne by the !u>erer! alne' a! ne f it! cn!e2uence! . The !afety f the !tate in !uch ca!e! verride! all cn!idera"n! f ,rivate l!!. *aci?c ;ailrad ca!e a! later made the basis fr the hldin0 in Juragua Iron Co. v. United States ' here recvery a! denied t the ner! f a factry hich had been de!tryed by American !ldier! in the ?eld in Cuba becau!e it a! thu0ht that the !tructure hu!ed the 0erm! f a cnta0iu! di!ea!e. The de!truc"n f re!,ndent!@ terminal! in the face f their im,endin0 !eiure by the enemy a! n di>erent than the de!truc"n f the brid0e! in the *aci?c ;ailrad ca!e. The @delibera"n@ behind the rder a! n mre than a de!i0n t ,revent the enemy frm realiin0 any !trate0ic value frm an area hich he a! !n t ca,ture.

The Dissent by Jusce DOUGLAS and Mr. Mr. Jusce BLACK: I beie!e that the "i#h A$end$ent re%uires c&$'ensa&n (&r the ta)in*. It +as as ceary a''r&'riated t& that end as ani$as, (&&d, and su''ies re%uisi&ned (&r the de(ense e-&rt. As the C&urt says, the destruc&n &( this 'r&'erty de'ri!ed the ene$y &( a !auabe &*iscs +ea'&n. The *uidin* 'rinci'e sh&ud be that +hene!er the *&!ern$ent deter$ines that &nes 'ers&na 'r&'erty, 'r&'erty, +hate!er it $ay be, is essena t& the +ar e-&rt and a''r&'riated it (&r the c&$$&n *&&d, the 'ubic 'urse rather than the indi!idua, sh&ud bear the &ss.