Pung v. Isabella County · ¶79
This Court has previously held that the rule that just compensation means fair market value admits of only two exceptions, neither of which applies here. “‘Just compensation,’ we have held, means in most cases the fair market value of the property on the date it is appropriated.” Kirby Forest Industries Inc. v. United States, 467 U. S. 1, 10 (1984) (quoting United States v. 564.54 Acres of Monroe and Pike County Land, 441 U. S. 506, 511–513 (1979)). “Other measures of ‘just compensation’ are employed only ‘when market value [is] too difficult to find, or when its application would result in manifest injustice to owner or public.’” Kirby Forest Indus., Inc., 467 U. S., at 10, n. 14 (quoting United States v. Commodities Trading Corp., 339 U. S. 121, 123 (1950)); accord, Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash., 538 U. S. 216, 244 (2003) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Our cases have recognized only…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.