In the 1944 case of Catlin et al., Trustees v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over property condemnation proceedings initiated by the federal government during World War II. The government sought to acquire land owned by Catlin and others for military purposes under its power of eminent domain but did not immediately pay compensation as required by law. Instead, it deposited an estimated value into court registry while awaiting judicial determination of fair market value. The owners challenged this process arguing that they were entitled to immediate payment before possession was taken and that without such payment there was no final judgment from which they could appeal. The Supreme Court disagreed with the landowners' argument stating that a declaration of taking coupled with depositing estimated compensation in court constituted "taking" within meaning of Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause even if amount might later be adjusted upwards or downwards based on judicial valuation proceedings. Therefore, it held that these actions represented a final order subject to appeal despite ongoing litigation about exact amount due.

In the dissenting opinion for CATLIN et al., TRUSTEES, v. UNITED STATES (1944), Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of finality in judicial proceedings. He contended that under normal circumstances, an order of condemnation and taking is considered final and appealable when it determines all issues except compensation amount. However, he noted that this case had been treated differently because it involved government acquisition of property during wartime - a situation where immediate possession by the government often occurs before determination of just compensation. Murphy believed this difference should not affect whether or not such orders are deemed 'final'. He also expressed concern about potential injustices to landowners who might be deprived of their properties without having any opportunity to challenge the legality or necessity of such takings until after they have occurred.