Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago

Supreme Court of the United States · 1897 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessTakingsEminent DomainEqual ProtectionPolice PowerFourteenth Amendmentdue process of law

Facts

Illinois law authorized Chicago to extend a street across a railroad's tracks or right of way, with compensation to be ascertained by a jury. Chicago sought to open and widen Rockwell Street across portions of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company's right of way, and the railroad appeared as a defendant in the condemnation proceeding. The jury awarded the railroad one dollar as just compensation for the crossing, while awarding other landowners compensation for their parcels. The railroad argued that opening the street across its right of way for nominal compensation deprived it of property without due process of law and denied equal protection.

Issue

Does the Fourteenth Amendment permit a State, through condemnation proceedings and a state-court judgment, to take a railroad's property for a public street crossing without real compensation, and did the Illinois proceedings here violate due process or equal protection? Also, may the Supreme Court reexamine the jury's factual valuation on writ of error from the state court?

Rule

A state-court judgment authorizing the taking of private property for public use without compensation made or secured is wanting in the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment. But when the State provides compensation and commits factual valuation to a jury, the Supreme Court on writ of error may review only legal rulings that absolutely disregard the right to just compensation, not the jury's factfinding; and expenses required to make the crossing safe are noncompensable burdens imposed under the State's police power.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Colorado legislature authorizes the City of Denver to condemn a strip of privately owned warehouse land for a new public fire station. The statute provides notice and a hearing but says the city may take title immediately without paying compensation or posting any security, leaving the owner to seek payment later only if the city council voluntarily appropriates funds.

If the owner challenges the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment, what is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority held that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires compensation to be made or adequately secured when a State takes private property for public use. Mere procedural regularity is not enough if the necessary result is a taking without compensation. Thus, notice and hearing alone do not save a statute that authorizes uncompensated taking.