Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1872 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPropertyTakingsEminent DomainTakings Clausephysical invasionpermanent floodingjust compensation

Facts

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's dam raised the waters of Winnebago Lake so that his land was overflowed continuously from the dam's completion in 1861 until suit was brought in 1867. The declaration described injuries showing an almost complete destruction of the land's value. The defendant relied on Wisconsin statutes authorizing the dam as part of navigation improvements and argued that no compensation was required. The statutes invoked in the later pleas made no provision for compensating the plaintiff for the damage to his land.

Issue

Whether legislative authority to erect and maintain a dam for public navigation improvements, without providing compensation, bars a landowner's action when the dam permanently floods his land and nearly destroys its value. More specifically, the question was whether such flooding is a "taking" of property within the meaning of the Wisconsin Constitution.

Rule

Where real estate is actually invaded by superinduced additions of water, earth, sand, or other material, or by the placement of an artificial structure, so as effectually to destroy or impair its usefulness, that invasion is a taking of private property within the meaning of a constitutional just-compensation provision. A state may not authorize such a taking for public use without making just compensation, even if the property is not formally seized or converted in the narrowest sense.

🔒

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 Ohio legislature authorizes Harbor Channel Works, a state-chartered navigation contractor, to build a lock near Toledo to improve river traffic. After the lock is completed, water backs up year-round onto Elena Ruiz's low-lying parcel, leaving most of it continuously submerged for five years and ruining its use as pastureland; the statute contains no compensation procedure for adjacent owners.

If Ruiz sues for compensation, which is the strongest argument under the controlling doctrine?

Explanation. The governing rule is that real estate is taken when it is actually invaded by superinduced water, earth, sand, other material, or an artificial structure in a way that effectually destroys or impairs its usefulness. Permanent or continuous flooding that nearly destroys the land's utility is not treated as mere consequential injury. Legislative authorization for a public navigation project does not eliminate the duty to provide just compensation.