Starin & Another v. New York is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1895. The case involved a dispute between the state of New York and two individuals, Starin and another, over the right to use a public pier in the Hudson River. The state of New York had granted a franchise to the Hudson River Railroad Company to use the pier, and the two individuals sought to use the pier for their own purposes. The Supreme Court held that the state of New York had the right to grant the franchise to the Hudson River Railroad Company, and that the two individuals did not have the right to use the pier for their own purposes. The Court reasoned that the state had the right to grant the franchise to the railroad company, and that the two individuals did not have the right to use the pier for their own purposes because the state had not granted them a franchise. The Court also held that the state of New York had the right to regulate the use of the pier, and that the two individuals did not have the right to use the pier for their own purposes without the permission of the state. The Court reasoned that the state had the right to regulate the use of the pier, and that the two individuals did not have the right to use the pier for their own purposes without the permission of the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state of New York had the right to grant the franchise to the Hudson River Railroad Company, and that the two individuals did not have the right to use the pier for their own purposes without the permission of the state.

In Starin & Another v. New York, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for the condemnation of private property in order to build public works projects violated the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The majority opinion held that it did not violate this clause because such condemnations were necessary and beneficial for society as a whole. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented to show how these takings would benefit society; secondly, he believed that allowing states to take private property without just compensation violated both natural justice and constitutional principles enshrined in the Fifth Amendment. He concluded by stating his belief that any taking of private property should be done only when absolutely necessary and after proper compensation had been provided to those affected by it.