McLennan County v. United States
Opinion of the Court
The plaintiff in this case claims that the United States took its property and destroyed it, and it therefore insists that it must be paid, not only the cost of the property alleged to have been destroyed but in addition thereto the incidental damages which it was put to by the use of the property alleged to have been taken.
The facts, which are fully set out in the findings, do not disclose a taking of the property of the plaintiff by the United States. The United States leased a certain tract of land for purposes of aviation. The road of the plaintiff ran
See Horstmann Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 138, 145. 146. where reference is made to United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, and where it is pointed out by the court that in subsequent cases the “ generality ’’ in the reasoning of that case has had exception in subsequent cases.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.