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

Sears, Trustee, v. City Of Akron

• 1917 • 246 U.S. 242 • White Court
In the 1917 case of Sears, Trustee v. City of Akron, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The dispute arose over a piece of land that was originally owned by Mr. Sears but had been taken over by the city for public use as part of a street improvement project without compensation to Mr. Sears on grounds that he would benefit from increased property value due to improvements made around his remaining property. However, when it became apparent that no such increase in value...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: 1917
Docket: 105
246 U.S. 242
38 S. Ct. 245
62 L. Ed. 688
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1539
Argued: Jan 21, 1918

Sears, Trustee, v. City Of Akron

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1917 case of Sears, Trustee v. City of Akron, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city. The dispute arose over a piece of land that was originally owned by Mr. Sears but had been taken over by the city for public use as part of a street improvement project without compensation to Mr. Sears on grounds that he would benefit from increased property value due to improvements made around his remaining property. However, when it became apparent that no such increase in value occurred and instead resulted in financial loss for him, Mr. Sears sued for compensation arguing violation of his constitutional rights under Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause which prohibits deprivation "of life, liberty or property without due process". The court held that while generally government must pay just compensation when private property is taken for public use (eminent domain), exceptions exist where benefits are conferred upon owner through improvements made around their remaining properties offsetting any losses incurred - known as 'special assessments'. In this case however since there were no actual benefits realized by Mr.Sears despite initial claims,the court concluded it was an error not compensating him initially but didn't order any payment because he failed to challenge assessment at time it was levied.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Sears, Trustee v. City of Akron, Justice Holmes argued that the city had not violated any constitutional rights by passing an ordinance to regulate billboards. He believed that such regulation was within the power of local governments and did not infrally upon property rights or freedom of speech. The justice contended that a billboard is a structure subject to municipal control like any other building in terms of safety and aesthetics considerations. Furthermore, he asserted that there was no contractual obligation between the city and billboard owners which could be impaired by this law as claimed by majority justices; rather it's just an exercise of police powers for public welfare.

Opinion written by Justice LDBrandeis
Decided: Mar 04, 1918
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