Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 1 (1919). · Go Syfert
Search
Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 1 (1919). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
84 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 13 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Orr v. United States (uscfc, 2023-05-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1922 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1922 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Orr v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2023 · confidence medium
Id. at 328 (quoting Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 1, 2 (1919)).
examined Cited "see, e.g." Benson v. State (6×)
S.D. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 250 U.S. 1 , 39 S.Ct. 399 , 63 L.Ed. 809 (1919) (Portsmouth I).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company Et Al.
v.
United States
381.
Supreme Court of the United States.
May 19, 1919.
250 U.S. 1
Mr. John Lowell, with whom Mr. Frank W. Hackett was on the brief, for appellants., Mr. Assistant Attorney General Brown, with whom Mr. Charles H. Weston was on the brief, for the United States.
The Chief Justice.
Cited by 27 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum opinion by

The Chief Justice.

Recovery was sought in the court below from the United States for property taken by it as the result of the alleged firing of guns in a fortification-on the coast of Maine and the passing of the projectiles oyer and across[*2] a portion of the land alleged to have been taken. The court finding that a former case by it decided against the owners and here affirmed (Peabody v. United States, 231 U. S. 530), for taking of the same land resulting from instances of gun fire resulting from the same fort and guns, was identical with this, except for some occasional subsequent acts of gun fire, held that case to be conclusive of this and rejected the claim on the merits.

Coming to consider this action of the court in the light of the findings by it made, we are constrained to the con-, elusion that it was right and that no possible difference exists between this and the Peabody Case. Before applying this conclusion we say that we find that the record discloses no ground for the applications here made to remand and for additional findings.

Judgment affirmed.