Miller v. Schoene

Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928), was a classic property rights case in balancing the rights of a property owner against a social policy that is not unreasonable.

Miller v. Schoene
Argued January 20, 1928
Decided February 20, 1928
Full case nameMiller, et al. v. Schoene
Citations276 U.S. 272 (more)
48 S. Ct. 246; 72 L. Ed. 568; 1928 U.S. LEXIS 78
Case history
PriorError to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Holding
The Virginia Statute and order to remove Miller's cedar trees did not violate due process.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinion
MajorityStone, joined by unanimous

Background

The State entomologist in Virginia acting under the Cedar Rust Act of Virginia ordered the plaintiffs' ornamental red cedar trees growing on the plaintiffs' property to be removed to prevent the spread of cedar rust disease to nearby apple orchards. The plaintiffs appealed the order to the circuit court of Shenandoah county, which affirmed the order, but allowed the plaintiffs to recover $100 to remove the trees. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia also Affirmed the decision.[1]

Issue

Did Virginia's Cedar Rust Act and order to remove Miller's cedar trees violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Holding

A unanimous decision found that the statute and the order to remove Miller's cedar trees did not violate the Due Process Clause. The Court recognized the State's interest in preventing the cedar rust from damaging nearby apple orchards as they were the "principal agriculture pursuit" in the state. The Court held that the destruction of Miller's trees would be a taking of his property; however, the State "did not exceed its constitutional powers by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property in order to save another which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public." [2]

gollark: Do neon signs have different dialects to newer LED ones?
gollark: To communicate with signs.
gollark: I did ancient Greek for 3 years at school because it was better than doing music or something.
gollark: My laptop lets me do convoluted compose key sequences for Greek, but I'm on a phone.
gollark: Anyway, modern compression algorithms are cool and good, so I'd expect a compression ratio around 3 on big enough chunks of message data.

See also

References
  1. Miller v Schoene Oyez, Retrieved on December 22, 2009.
  2. Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 279 (1928).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.