33 U.S.C. § 595
Consideration of benefits in assessing compensation
In all cases where private property shall be taken by the United States for the public use in connection with any improvement of rivers, harbors, canals, or waterways of the United States, and in all condemnation proceedings by the United States to acquire lands or easements for such improvements, where a part only of any such parcel, lot, or tract of land shall be taken, the jury or other tribunal awarding the just compensation or assessing the damages to the owner, whether for the value of the part taken or for any injury to the part not taken, shall take into consideration by way of reducing the amount of compensation or damages any special and direct benefits to the remainder arising from the improvement, and shall render their award or verdict accordingly.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases, 1934–2015 · leading case: Horne v. Dep't of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015).
Horne v. Dep't of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015). “, 33 U. S. C. §595 . But I am unaware of any congressional authorization that would increase beyond the constitutional floor the compensation owed for a taking of the Hornes’ raisins.”
United States v. 62.17 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Jasper Cnty., Texas, Etc., 538 F.2d 670 (5th Cir. 1976). “11 This phrase, according to the landowner, incorporates the requirement of 33 U.S.C. § 595 that, in partial takings by condemnation proceedings, compensation is to be reduced in the amount of the project’s enhancement of the remainder.”
United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369 (1943). “911 , 33 U. S. C. § 595 . 22 Sharp v. United States, supra; Campbell v.”
Los Angeles Cnty. Metro. Transp. Auth. v. Cont'l Dev. Corp., 941 P.2d 809 (Cal. 1997). “, 33 U.S.C. § 595 [improvement of waterways].”
United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967). “911 , 33 U. S. C. §595 . 3 67 Stat. 29 , 43 U. S.”
United States v. Alcorn, 80 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1935). “Hence the question presented for our consideration is whether or not the addition to the market value of the property by reason of its speculative value arising from its proximity to so great a project is a “special and direct benefit” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C.A. § 595 .…”
United States v. 133.79 Acres of Land, More or Less, 230 F. Supp. 973 (W.D. Ark. 1964). “Following the discussion of the testimony, the Government contends that the statute, 33 U.S.C. § 595 , applies, and that in awarding just compensation or assessing the damages, the court shall take into consideration, by way of reducing the amount of compensation or damages, any…”
The City of Van Buren, Arkansas v. The United States, 697 F.2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “, 33 U.S.C. § 595 (1918) (for a partial taking, only “special and direct benefits” to the remaining property are considered in awarding compensation or assessing damages).”
United States v. O. C. Trout, Jr. & Wife, Dora S. Trout, O. C. Trout, Jr. & Wife, Dora S. Trout v. United States, 386 F.2d 216 (5th Cir. 1967). “Section 6 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 595 provides that In all cases where private property shall be taken by the United States for the public use in connection with any improvement of rivers, harbors, canals, or waterways of the United States, and in all…”
R. B. Rands Et Ux. v. United States, 367 F.2d 186 (9th Cir. 1966). “There a statute provided that where only a part of a parcel of land was taken for a river improvement project, the resulting award should be reduced by the amount of any direct benefit conferred upon the remaining land by the project.”
United States v. Eastman, 528 F. Supp. 1177 (D. Or. 1981). “See 33 U.S.C. § 595 ; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U.S.”
United States v. 2,477.79 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in Bell Cnty., Texas, & Tom G. Bowles, Jr., 259 F.2d 23 (5th Cir. 1958). “33 U.S.C.A. § 595 . The three tracts involved in this proceeding were, prior to the taking, and should be regarded, for the purpose of fixing compensation for Tracts B-113-1 and B-113-2, as *28 a single parcel.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.