Sanguinetti v. United States, 130
| Citation | 264 U.S. 146,68 L.Ed. 608,44 S.Ct. 264 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
| Parties | SANGUINETTI v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. Benjamin Carter, of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the United States.
The main portion of the city of Stockton, Cal., and the adjacent territory lie between the Calaveras river and the Mormon slough, both flowing in a general southwesterly direction. The streams are several miles apart, and the intervening area, including appellant's land, has always been subject to inundation by overflow therefrom, as well as by reason of periodic heavy rainfall. During periods of high water sediment was deposited in large quantities in the navigable channel, intefering with navigation and entailing annual expenditures for dredging. In view of this condition, Congress, in 1902, authorized the construction above the city of a connecting canal, by means of which the waters of Mormon slough were diverted into the Calaveras river. Act June 13, 1902, 32 Stat. 368, c. 1079. The canal was constructed in accordance with plans prepared by government engineers, after investigation, upon a right of way procured by the state of California and conveyed to the United States. A diversion dam was placed in the slough, immediately below the intake of the canal. The excavated material was put on the lower side of the canal, making a levee, of which the dam was practically a continuation; but that this was not done with a view of casting flood waters upon the upper lands is apparent, since the engineers believed the capacity of the canal would prove sufficient under all circumstances. It was evidently the most convenient method of disposing of the material, and also it may have contributed to strengthen the lower bank against erosion. The canal was completed in 1910. In January, 1911, there was a flood of unprecedented severity, and there were recurrent floods of less magnitude in subsequent years, except in 1912 and 1913. The capacity of the canal proved insufficient to carry away the flood waters, which overflowed the lands of appellant, lying above the canal, damaging and destroying crops and trees, and injuring to some extent the land itself. Appellant brought suit against the government to recover damages upon the alleged theory of a taking of the property thus overflowed. The land would have been flooded if the canal had not been constructed, but to what extent does not appear. None of the land of appellant was permanently flooded, nor was it overflowed for such a length of time in any year as to prevent its use for agricultural purposes. It was not shown, either directly or inferentially, that the government or any of its officers, in the preparation of the plans or in the construction of the canal, had any intention to thereby flood any of the land here involved, or had any reason to expect that such result would follow. That the carrying capacity of the canal was insufficient during periods of very heavy rains and extremely high water was due to lack of accurate information in respect of the conditions to be met at such times. The engineers who made the examination and recommended the plans determined, upon the information which they had, that the canal would have a capacity considerably in excess of the requirements in this respect.
The Court of Claims concluded that none of the land here involved had been taken, within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and that therefore no recovery could be had upon the theory of an implied contract, but that the liability sought to be enforced was one sounding in tort, of which the court had no jurisdiction. Accordingly the petition was dismissed.
Beginning with Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 20 L. Ed. 557, this court has had frequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland Cnty.
...challenged government act and the increased flooding—a connection which is lacking in this case. See Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 149–50, 44 S.Ct. 264, 68 L.Ed. 608 (1924) (finding no taking occurred where there was no causal connection between the construction of a nearby go......
-
Lenoir v. Porters Creek Watershed Dist.
...injury, or tort. In such cases recovery is not authorized in this court. 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (1970); Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 44 S.Ct. 264, 68 L.Ed. 608 (1924); Bedford v. United States, 192 U.S. 217, 225, 24 S.Ct. 238, 48 L.Ed. 414 (1904); Hartwig v. United States, supra; N......
-
Webb v. Union Electric Co.
...the Federal Courts' interpretation of what constitutes an appropriation of a person's property. Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 44 S. Ct. 264, 68 L. Ed. 608 (1924); Christman et al. v. United States, 74 Fed. 2d 112 (CCA 7, 1934). Where a riparian owner becomes aware of the fact ......
-
Krebs v. Uhl, 16.
...275, 17 S. Ct. 578, 41 L. Ed. 996; Scranton v. Wheeler, 179 U. S. 141, 164, 21 S. Ct. 48, 45 L. Ed. 126; Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U. S. 146, 148, 44 S. Ct. 264, 68 L. Ed. 608. It is necessary to observe that the prohibition in the Maryland Constitution is confined, as is that in th......
-
Supreme Court Docket Report - April 2, 2012
...a pair of Supreme Court cases from the early 1900s, United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 (1917), and Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146 (1924), which held that, to constitute a taking, flooding must present "an actual, permanent invasion of the land," amounting to "an appropriation ......
-
Flood Subrogation Under The Fifth Amendment
...temporary flood claims can never be takings under the Constitution. In Arkansas Game the government cited Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146 and United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316 in support of its position. The Supreme Court distinguished the Sanguinetti permanent reference as di......
-
Constitutional wish granting and the property rights genie.
...that the government intended a taking by that which no human knowledge could even predict." Id. at 146. In Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146 (1924), another flooding case, the Court also refers to the government's lack of intent to flood the plaintiff's property as a basis for deny......
-
A REIGN OF ERROR: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STARE DECISIS.
...(alteration in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Wash. v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997)). (359.) Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 149 (1924) ("[l]n order to create an enforceable liability against the Government, it is, at least, necessary that the overflow be the dir......
-
Takings, torts and turmoil: reviewing the authority requirement of the Just Compensation Clause.
...(120.) Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 125 (1922). (121.) Id. at 127. See also Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146 (1924) (noting that a government-constructed canal that was unable to carry away flood waters and, as a result, overflowed and damaged the ne......
-
But Flooding Is Different: Takings Liability for Flooding in the Era of Climate Change
...& Fish Comm’n v. United States, 736 F.3d 1364, 1372, 43 ELR 20260 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 114. Id . at 35 (citing Sanguinetti v. United States, 264 U.S. 146, 149 (1924)). 115. Id . 116. Id . at 36. D. The Test For guidance in evaluating temporary looding claims, the Court created a test, acknowle......