Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles
| Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 26, 1923 Decided June 11, 1923 | |
| Full case name | Rindge Co., et al. v. County of Los Angeles |
| Citations | 262 U.S. 700 (more) 43 S. Ct. 689; 67 L. Ed. 1186; 1923 U.S. LEXIS 2678 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | County of Los Angeles v. Rindge Co., 53 Cal.App. 166, 200 P. 27 (Dist. App. 2d Dist. 1921) |
| Holding | |
| A county government can use its power of eminent domain to take land from a private landowner to build a scenic highway. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Sanford, joined by Taft, McKenna, Holmes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Butler |
| Sutherland took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a county government could use its power of eminent domain to take land from a private landowner to build a scenic highway.
these roads, especially the main road, through its connection with the public road coming along the shore from Santa Monica, will afford a highway for persons desiring to travel along the shore to the county line, with a view of the ocean on one side, and of the mountain range on the other, constituting, as stated by the trial judge, a scenic highway of great beauty. Public uses are not limited, in the modern view, to matters of mere business necessity and ordinary convenience, but may extend to matters of public health, recreation and enjoyment. Thus, the condemnation of lands for public parks is now universally recognized as a taking for public use. A road need not be for a purpose of business to create a public exigency; air, exercise and recreation are important to the general health and welfare; pleasure travel may be accommodated as well as business travel; and highways may be condemned to places of pleasing natural scenery.[1]
Background
[edit]_LCCN2016861504.png)
According to the Adamson House tour guides:
In 1892, Henry Keller sold the 13,000-acre (53 km2) Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit or 'Rancho Malibu' to Rhoda May Knight Rindge and Frederick H. Rindge, for a price variously reported as $10-$22 per acre. Keller, it is said, had acquired it for 10 cents an acre in 1854. Rindge, from Cambridge, Massachusetts, had recently inherited an estate of more than $2 million and moved to Los Angeles, California, where he wrote a book called "Happy Days in Southern California." Then he looked for "a farm near the ocean, and under the lee of the mountain, with a trout brook, wild trees, a lake, good soil, and excellent climate." He found his farm in Malibu Canyon. He described the Malibu coast as the American Riviera.[2]
May Rindge of Trenton, Michigan owned 17,000 acres (69 km2) of ranch land, much of what has been incorporated into the city of Malibu, California. First, the Southern Pacific Railroad tried to take her land, so, according to the city of Malibu:
Upon hearing of the Southern Pacific's plans, Mr. Rindge decided to build a private railroad through his ranch to keep the bigger railroad company out of his domain. A little-known law prevented duplication of an existing railroad line. Before any tracks could be laid, however, Mr. Rindge died. It was left to his widow to carry out his plans, which she did with 15 miles (24 km) of standard gauge tracks called the Hueneme, Malibu and Port Los Angeles Railway. May Rindge became its president and one of the few women ever to become president of a railroad.[3]
The rails were later reused to build Rindge Dam.
Eminent domain
[edit]See also
[edit]- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 262
- 17 Mile Drive – A private scenic road on the California coast some 250 miles north of Malibu on the Monterey peninsula.
- Berman v. Parker – A later case (1954) in the Supreme Court regarding the power of eminent domain.
- Hueneme, Malibu and Port Los Angeles Railway (The railroad that the Rindges built through Malibu)
References
[edit]- ^ Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700, 707-08 (1923).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ Adamson House Tour
- ^ Chapter Four
- ^ "Rindge and Adamson Family Papers". oac.cdlib.org.
- ^ a b "O'Melveny and Meyers - TRR-41". adamsonhouse.pastperfectonline.com.
- ^ a b Project, United States Federal Writers; California, WPA Writers' Program of the Work Projects Administration in Southern (April 5, 2011). Los Angeles in the 1930s: The WPA Guide to the City of Angels. University of California Press. ISBN 9780520268838 – via Google Books.
- ^ a b c d "Defender of Malibu's Beauty". Los Angeles Times. March 29, 1998.
- ^ a b Wallace, David (October 20, 2003). Hollywoodland. Macmillan. ISBN 9780312316143 – via Google Books.
Further reading
[edit]- Bell, Julius Raymond (1931). "Public Purpose in Taxation and Eminent Domain. The Construction of Highways, Roads and Bridges". Virginia Law Review. 18 (1). Virginia Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 1: 50–67. doi:10.2307/1066374. JSTOR 1066374.
- Phillips, Jewell Cass (1937). "Excess Condemnation for City, County, Township and Regional Planning". Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics. 13 (2). The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2: 174–180. doi:10.2307/3158709. JSTOR 3158709.
- Randall, David K. (2016). The King and Queen of Malibu: The True Story of the Battle for Paradise (1st ed.). New York, New York: W.W. Norton and Company. ISBN 978-0-393-24099-3.
External links
[edit]
Works related to Rindge Company v. Los Angeles County at Wikisource- Text of Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
- Legal Information Institute Annotated Constitution National Eminent Domain Power
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |