Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Block, Trading Under The Name Of Whites, v. Hirsch

• 1920 • 256 U.S. 135 • White Court
In the 1920 case of Block v. Hirsch, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Washington D.C. law that regulated rents and prevented eviction during a housing shortage following World War I. The plaintiff, Block, who was trading under the name Whites, argued that this law violated his Fifth Amendment rights by taking property without just compensation and denying him liberty to contract freely with tenants. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for the majority in an 8-1 decision, ruled...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1920
Docket: 640
256 U.S. 135
41 S. Ct. 458
65 L. Ed. 865
1921 U.S. LEXIS 1660
Argued: Mar 03, 1921

Block, Trading Under The Name Of Whites, v. Hirsch

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1920 case of Block v. Hirsch, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Washington D.C. law that regulated rents and prevented eviction during a housing shortage following World War I. The plaintiff, Block, who was trading under the name Whites, argued that this law violated his Fifth Amendment rights by taking property without just compensation and denying him liberty to contract freely with tenants. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for the majority in an 8-1 decision, ruled that such regulation constituted a temporary measure justified by emergency conditions (the severe housing shortage). He stated it did not constitute permanent confiscation of property but rather represented valid use of police power to protect public welfare during extraordinary circumstances.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Block, trading under the name of Whites, v. Hirsch was not available or does not exist. The Supreme Court records do not show a case by this exact name and year. It is possible that there may be some confusion regarding the details provided for this particular court case as it's common to have multiple cases with similar names but different years or jurisdictions.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Apr 18, 1921
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms