Berman v. Parker

PETITIONER: Berman
RESPONDENT: Parker
LOCATION:

DOCKET NO.: 22
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1954-1955)
LOWER COURT:

ARGUED: Oct 19, 1954
DECIDED: Nov 22, 1954

Facts of the case

The Redevelopment Act of 1945 of D.C. imposed the right on a special agency to acquire real property by eminent domain for its reconstruction for another private company. Therefore, the normative document had the purpose of reconstruction and redevelopment of territories in D.C.

Under this legislation provision, the real estate of Mr. Berman was transferred for reconstruction purposes in the Southwest D.C. The plaintiff filed the claim proving that such acquirement of his building of department store was illegal and violated the rights stated in the Fifth Amendment's provisions on the prohibition of illegitimate deprivation of public using property without legitimate grounds including for public use, without relevant compensation.

Under the case brief, the federal District Court refused claim however stated that development agency could only transfer building that was dangerous for public health and safety.

Furthermore, the case was revised in the USA Supreme Court that was faced to issue to decide if the mentioned legislative provisions empowered the government to quire and pass property from one private person to another to avoid the destruction of it.

The case study consists of few points of judgment that was upheld by the court. The Supreme Court confirmed legality of such points of previous rulings that the state had right to establish reconstruction of some buildings used in public purpose, that was not blighted, but was situated on the territory of the redevelopment plan and to transfer ownership on it to the redevelopment agency.

The court concluded in its final judgement that the owners of condemned property should obtain appropriate recompense payment to adhere their rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Question

Did the seizing of Berman and the other appellants' property for the purpose of beautification and redevelopment of the community violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment?