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

Leo Sheep Co. Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

• 1978 • 440 U.S. 668 • Burger Court
In the case of Leo Sheep Co. et al. v. United States et al., 1978, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government's right to take private property for public use under its power of eminent domain, provided that just compensation is given to landowners as required by the Fifth Amendment. The dispute arose when Congress passed an act authorizing a land exchange between Wyoming ranchers and the Department of Interior without providing direct monetary compensation to affected...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 Burger Court
Term: 1978
Docket: 77-1686
440 U.S. 668
99 S. Ct. 1403
59 L. Ed. 2d 677
1979 U.S. LEXIS 81
Argued: Jan 15, 1979

Leo Sheep Co. Et Al. v. United States Et Al.

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Leo Sheep Co. et al. v. United States et al., 1978, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government's right to take private property for public use under its power of eminent domain, provided that just compensation is given to landowners as required by the Fifth Amendment. The dispute arose when Congress passed an act authorizing a land exchange between Wyoming ranchers and the Department of Interior without providing direct monetary compensation to affected parties but instead offering them grazing rights on adjacent lands as part of a plan to create a national park at Grand Teton National Park. The ranchers argued this violated their constitutional rights because they were not adequately compensated for their loss; however, the court held that while fair market value is often used as measure for "just" compensation, it does not always have to be in cash form and can include other forms like equivalent property or benefits.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Leo Sheep Co. et al. v. United States et al., Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of an 1866 statute granting right-of-way through public lands to construct highways, arguing that it did not grant a permanent easement to the government but rather only a temporary one while construction was ongoing. He also contended that even if such an easement were granted, it would be limited in scope and could not include land necessary for maintenance or operation of a highway without compensation to the property owner under Fifth Amendment takings clause principles. Furthermore, he argued that subsequent legislation had extinguished any rights previously granted by this statute and therefore there was no legal basis for denying compensation to affected landowners when their property is taken for highway purposes.

Opinion written by Justice WHRehnquist
Decided: Mar 27, 1979
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
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