Court Opinion

ID: 9700927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:53:40.773127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:15.981263
License: Public Domain

MADDEN, Judge
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with the court’s decision. It awards to the plaintiff $2,241.26 as an extra expense of operation occasioned by the Government. This extra expense consisted of an increased vacation allowance to the plaintiff’s workman, and the refund to them of occupational charges like rentals on mine lamps. The court has not found that the plaintiff could have operated its mine without making the concessions directed by the War Labor Board, nor has it found what the losses to the plaintiff would have been if the Government had not intervened and the strike had continued. I think that the court is not justified in awarding the plaintiff the amount of these expenditures when it does not and, I think, could not, find that the plaintiff was, in fact, financially harmed by the Government’s acts.
The question of whether or not there was a taking by the Government is somewhat more difficult that the similar question in Wheelock Bros., Inc. v. United States, Ct.Cl., 88 F.Supp. 278. I am of the impression that there was not a taking, within the meaning of the Constitution, but I think it is unnecessary to decide that question since, as I see it, no harm to the plaintiff has been shown.