Legal Document

335 U.S. 359 69 Supreme Court Reporter 114 93 L.Ed. 64 GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITYv.GRAND-HYDRO. Number 6. Argued Oct. 12, 13, 1948. Decided Nov. 22, Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, See 900, 298. Mr. Howard E. Wahrenbrock, of Washington, D.C., for The United States as amicus curiae. Robert L. Davidson, Tulsa, Okl., petitioner. [Argument Counsel from page 360 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Dade Hudson, and S. Frank Fowler, Knoxville, Tenn., respondent. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion Court. 1 federal question in this action condemnation under Oklahoma law is whether Federal Power Act1 had so far affected use or value certain land power site purposes to render inadmissible expert testimony which gave recognition that land's availability a site. We hold it not. thus see no adequate reason reverse held such was properly admitted state proceeding. 2 This brought by petitioner, Grand River Dam Authority, District Mayes County, Oklahoma, condemn award damages taking 1,462.48 acres respondent, Grand-Hydro. Four hundred seventeen these have been used petitioner its hydroelectric project, near Pensacola, on Oklahoma. Commissioners, appointed court assess sustained appropriation lands, awarded respondent $281,802.74. Each party, however, objected demanded jury trial. That trial resulted verdict judgment $136,250. On appeal, reversed remanded case new conformity with opinion. important determining issues before us. 192 Okl. 693, 139 Pacific Reporter, 2nd Series 798. Six judges concurred opinion, one result two dissented. 3 In 1945, $800,000, together interest $518,197.26 January 19, 1940, date amount fixed Com issioners paid into court. affirmed judgment, seven two. 201 225. denied certiorari, 332 841, 68 263, but, rehearing, granted it, 333 852, 729, because possible significance relation Act. filed brief curice, at each stage proceedings, supporting contentions petitioner.2 4 conservation reclamation district, created 1935 Legislature. It corporate agency State develop sell water electric energy Basin.3 private corporation, organized 1929 laws has usual powers public utility, including waters River, construct dams, generate distribute electricity acquire right eminent domain, purchase otherwise, real personal property purposes. treated nonnavigable stream, tributary Arkansas navigable stream. 5 Long prior litigation acquired acreage proposed development River. 1931, obtained Conservation Commission license permit appropriate beneficial use, dam river, there sale.4 never any declaration intention application relative project. 6 February, 1934, City Tulsa an against others seeking adjudication rights Spavinaw Creek Pensacola. During pendency Legislature herein, exclusive authority manner described effect, priority over although title needed thereupon made party action. However, filing answer cross-petition, entered agreement voluntary assignment latter's river project.5 likewise secured 45 essential due course, rendered aw rding control required stating therein. conveyance ten additional also entry upon 362 acres. These up 417 referred As later found Oklahoma— 7 'The conveyances were condition consideration would be determined provided therein: 8 "It understood, shall not, way, affect impair Grand-Hydro lands owned interests therein, if therein said Grand-Hydro, are Authority condemnation, thereof damage thereto ascertained though made." versus 227. 9 parties being unable agree price land, present 1939. petition reference Act claimed thereunder. other hand, based claim 'in general respect condemnation' Act.6 project located upper reaches (or Neosho) above river's confluence Creek. meantime, December 15, 1937, § 23(b) Act.7 stated that— 10 construction will probably not prospective navigation stream fact, navigability Mississippi rivers appreciably thereby. reservations States, interstate foreign commerce.' 11 If agreed foregoing statement, permitted merely petitioner's compliance laws. February 11, 1938, 12 '(c) co struction operation declarant stages tributary; 13 therefore finds that: 14 15 Thereupon, sought and, July 26, 1939, affecting States. amendment issued 16 proceeding court, government exercise does seek rights. seeks only land. At original trial, excluded evidence insofar exclusion constituted reversible error retrial follows: 17 measure compensation fair market cash condemned. Creekmore, 167 298, 29 101, 102. speaking elements considered value, said: 18 test some particular might subjected, adaptability may factors ascertaining when they enter property. Revell Muskogee, 36 529, 121 KF135 P2 833; Public Service company Leatherbee, 311 Ill. 505, 143 Northeastern N59 97.' 19 'And syllabus taken domain defined 20 "By meant money purchaser willing but obliged buy pay owner all uses adapted applied.' 21 'With element 22 "In piece estate applied should consideration, possibility purposes, prospective, applied, must considered, men prudence wisdom having means devote them ultimate test.' 23 contains reasonably clear statement obtaining here. condemnee ordinarily entitled measured he his ordinary grantee legally apply same.' Hydro 694, 798, 800. 24 After second appeal reaffirmed following terms, pointed curiae, now place us: 25 'In different facts presented consist competency testimony, last witnesses site; submission proper instructions; effect Grand-Hydro's lack Commission; court's refusal allow counsel argue condemned fact; allowance interest. 26 'Appellant contends passage act creating was, forfeiture (state) recover intent legislature passing act, violation Constitution, article 2, section 24. cannot, through making body, remove principal established agency, basing reimbursement reduced value. otherwise circumvent our Constitution. 27 introduced therefore, competent prove accord former appeal. * 28 'Although granting acre tract site, could thereby take without just compensation.' 227, 228. deprive those probative weight case, fact purported rest decision largely eliminate duty consider extent arises law.8 Again, suggested superseded set standard valuation binding even law. is, us examine questions necessarily, impliedly, adjudicated accept forth quotations, given respective put interpretations settled issue favor respondent's interpretation. points court: 30 (Emphasis supplied.) 31 then argues that, virtue special incorporation, holds grant concerned, t neither nor originally purpose conveyed purpose, postponed, until now, determination price. help rights, judicial itself above-mentioned Thus equipped, erected 32 Accordingly, correct interpretation order introduce show lawfully usable valid admissible. holding necessary considered. permit, expressly quoted (335 369, 119) did such. violate Constitution same (69 possession approved admitting offered behalf absence face already 33 stands squarely announced first case. Its time further interpreted enough, reasonable lawful showing authorizing build dam. surmised approving admission 'ordinary grantee' determine relied other, both, alternatives. Reliance either make disputed admissible 34 Under remaining obvious. cannot destroy valueless owner's purpose. attached conditions encourage rather than prohibit sites. preserve enhance, destroy, their While limited left great benefits availabl large convincing proof 35 purchaser, unobligated seller, inevitably negotiated long competitors law, gained amounts acquisition use. makes natural asset streams paying occupied between corporations sales placed limitation negotiations. substance part sale 37 licensee such, Act, considerations above. enjoys commerce. asserting likewise, enforce license.9 we express what licensees reliance derived 38 provisions bearing rate base material case.10 Whatever change licensee, br ready power, appropriatbody give allowed base. There nothing purports prescribe voluntarily good faith incorporates prescribes seller condemnee, condemnor, absorb reduction, any, purchaser's compared actually superseding restricting courts State, indicate attempt Congress nationwide laws.11 39 suggestion materiality relate event takes after expiration license.12 raised comparable discussed except recapture more remote computation rates charged product. accordingly arise when, abovementioned proceedings taken. 40 For reasons, affirmed. 41 Affirmed. 42 DOUGLAS, whom BLACK, MURPHY RUTLEDGE join, dissenting. 43 decision, matter how rationalized, water-power current who can it. asserted dominion power.1 specifies exploit 23(b), operate. First Iowa Hydro-Electric Co-op. Comm., 328 152, 66 906, 90 1143. 44 Petitioner license. Respondent none reasons unnecessary here, concededly obtain one. recognize, policy respected. When recognized, claimant privilege grant. bald procedure, conse quence entrenched designed defeat. 46 burden impairment identical Never before, & N Immigration Nationality Decisions believe, less protection r ceive court.2 Statutes-at-Large 1063, amended, 49 838, Code KF62 §§ 791a 825r, Annotated KF65 U5 791a—825r. financed loan agreement. support Government approximately $14,000,000 revenue bonds. also, 31, 1946, 60 743, refinancing Okla.Sess.L.1935, chapter 70, Article 4, Sen.Bill 395; Okla.Sess.L.1936—1937, 1, 299, House Bill 3; Okla.Stat.Ann. tit. 82, 861—881 (1938). 2(f) 'Section 2. Powers, Rights Privileges.— '(f) To Kind, real, personal, mixed, within boundaries convenient powers, privileges functions conferred condemnation;' 4. Okla.Rev.L.1910, 40; Okla.Sess.L.1927, 62; 451—510 lower 697, 698, 803, 804. note 3, supra. 'Sec. 23. '(b) Any person, association, municipality intending works across, along, over, thereof, herein waters, jurisdiction regulate commerce nations among several file Commission, whereupon cause immediate investigation made, find construction, construct, maintain, operate received find, affected, permission hereby laws.' 846, 817, 817. Enterprise Irrigation Dist. Farmers Mutual Canal Co., 243 157, 164, 318, 320, 61 644; Nutt Knut, 200 216, 219, 50 348; Bellingham Bay Boom 176 211, 218, 343, 346, 437. Davis Wechsler, 263 24, 25, 14, 143; American Railway Express Levee, 140. 1074, 814, 814. 1073, 812, 813, 1071, 844, 807, U.S.C.a. 807. Even district practice procedure conform nearly where situated. (United Chandler-Dunbar Water 229 53, 69, 667, 674, 57 1063; Appalachian Electric 377, 427, 428, 291, 308, 309, 85 243) extends non-navigable command inconsistent program navigation. Willow 324 499, 509, 65 761, 767, 89 1101. regulation ex rel. Phillips Guy KF105 F3 Atkinson 313 508, 525, 1050, 1059, 1487. (and unchallenged here) tributary. H.R.Doc.No.242, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. 123 (1921); H.R.Doc.No.107, 76th 1st (1939); August 18, 1941, 55 645. VI Acts 'the supreme Law Land' directs Judges every bound thereby'.

Classification Label: 7