Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles,
262 U.S. 700 (1923)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Rindge Co. v. Los Angeles, 262 U.S. 700 (1923)

Rindge Company v. County of Los Angeles

No. 237

Argued April 26, 1923

Decided June 11, 1923

262 U.S. 700


1. Whether a use for which private property is taken is public or private is a judicial question the determination of which is influenced by local conditions, and this Court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions, and regard with great respect the judgment of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses. P. 262 U. S. 705.

2. It is not essential that the entire community, or even a considerable portion, should directly enjoy an improvement in order to constitute a public use. P. 262 U. S. 706.

3. A taking of land for a highway extension is a taking for a public use, even though the extension he wholly within the tract of a single landowner and terminate at his boundaries and connect with no public road save at its beginning, if it be susceptible of present use not only by those gaining access from the highway, but by persons living on or adjacent to the tract with access by private ways, and of future use by those living beyond its terminus, through future road construction. P. 262 U. S. 706.

4. A highway may be legally laid out extending to a state or county line even though there be at the time no connecting highway in

Page 262 U. S. 701

the adjoining state or county in reasonable anticipation of future connections and future public use. P. 262 U. S. 707.

5. Public use of a road is not limited to its use as a mere business necessity or ordinary convenience, but includes its use as a scenic highway for the public enjoyment, recreation, and health. P. 262 U. S. 707.

6. The necessity for appropriating private property for a public use is a legislative question which may be determined by a municipality to which the legislature has delegated the power, and the Fourteenth Amendment does not entitle the owner to a hearing before the determination is made. P. 262 U. S. 708.

53 Cal.App. 166 affirmed.

Error to judgments of the District Court of Appeal of California which affirmed judgments condemning private lands as county highways.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.