About: Lansing v. Smith     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.org/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org%2Fresource%2FLansing_v._Smith&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fdbpedia.org

Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829), is a case decided by the Court of Appeals of New York which is relevant to eminent domain law. The case held that: People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative. The United States Supreme Court, in the later case of , 152 U.S. 1, 21 (1894), cited Lansing as standing for the following proposition:

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Lansing v. Smith (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829), is a case decided by the Court of Appeals of New York which is relevant to eminent domain law. The case held that: People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative. The United States Supreme Court, in the later case of , 152 U.S. 1, 21 (1894), cited Lansing as standing for the following proposition: (en)
dcterms:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
sameAs
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
has abstract
  • Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (1829), is a case decided by the Court of Appeals of New York which is relevant to eminent domain law. The case held that: People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative. In Lansing v. Smith, a statute of New York authorized the construction of a basin in the Hudson at Albany, and erections whereby the docks, etc., of the plaintiff were rendered inaccessible by vessels. Despite this harm, it was determined that the act, although it provided no compensation for such injury, was not unconstitutional, either as taking private property for public use without compensation or as impairing the obligation of contracts; that the plaintiff had not at common law, as owner of the adjacent soil, nor by virtue of a grant from the State for land under water opposite to the shore, and under which he claimed, a right 'to the natural flow of the river with which the State had no right to interfere by any erection in the bed of the river or in any other manner.' The United States Supreme Court, in the later case of , 152 U.S. 1, 21 (1894), cited Lansing as standing for the following proposition: In New York, it was long considered as settled law that the state succeeded to all the rights of the crown and parliament of England in lands under tide waters, and that the owner of land bounded by a navigable river within the ebb and flow of the tide had no private title or right in the shore below high-water mark, and was entitled to no compensation for the construction, under a grant from the legislature of the state, of a railroad along the shore between high and low-water mark, cutting off all access from his land to the river, except across the railroad. (en)
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git139 as of Feb 29 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3330 as of Mar 19 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory, 39 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software