United States v. Willow River Power Co.
| United States v. Willow River Power Co. | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 8–9, 1945 Decided March 26, 1945 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Willow River Power Co. |
| Citations | 324 U.S. 499 (more) 65 S. Ct. 761; 89 L. Ed.r 1101 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 101 Ct. Cls. 222 (reversed) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Jackson, joined by Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge |
| Dissent | Roberts, joined by Stone |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. V | |
United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499 (1945), is a 1945 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court involving the question whether the United States was liable under the Fifth Amendment for a "taking" of private property for a public purpose when it built a dam on navigable waters that raised the water level upstream to lessen the head of water at a power company’s dam, thereby decreasing the production of power by the company’s hydroelectric turbines. The Court’s opinion is notable because it considers whether the courts will provide a remedy because a property right has been invaded, or whether a property right exists because the courts will enforce it. This question has been compared with the dilemma found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro.