Also known as: adequately compensate · adequate compensations · just compensation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A payment by the government that makes a property owner whole after a taking of private property for public use. The Fifth Amendment requires this payment whenever the government appropriates real or personal property, including through regulations that eliminate all economically beneficial use or compel physical transfer of goods.
The amount of money that fully compensates a tort victim for proven harm. Recovery requires the plaintiff to establish the extent of the injury and the corresponding sum with reasonable certainty given the nature of the tort and available evidence.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A payment by the government that makes a property owner whole after a taking of private property for public use. The Fifth Amendment requires this payment whenever the government appropriates real or personal property, including through regulations that eliminate all economically beneficial use or compel physical transfer of goods.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Adrian Aguilar, a grape grower, receives an order from a federal program requiring him to divert thirty percent of each harvest into a government pipeline for school lunches. He retains only warehouse receipts that may produce later surplus proceeds. The compelled transfer of his crop constitutes a taking that triggers the government's duty to provide adequate compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
Alpine Mining operates a nonconforming quarry that a new zoning ordinance requires to close after a ten-year phase-out period. The company has made substantial recent investments in equipment that cannot be recovered elsewhere. Because the amortization period must not amount to a taking, the ordinance is valid only if it supplies adequate compensation for the lost property interest.
Anika Anand, a raisin grower, must surrender a portion of her crop to a federal marketing program that later offers only a contingent interest in any surplus sales. The physical appropriation of her personal property requires the government to pay adequate compensation regardless of the contingent future interest retained.
Yes. The Fifth Amendment protects personal property as well as real property. When a federal program compels growers to surrender a fixed portion of their harvest, the physical appropriation constitutes a per se taking that requires just compensation even if the owner retains only a contingent interest in later surplus proceeds.
Supporting sources
Amortization is permissible only if the phase-out period is reasonable in light of the owner's investment and the nature of the use. If the fixed deadline effectively destroys the preexisting property right without compensation, the ordinance amounts to an uncompensated taking.
Supporting sources
The amount of money that fully compensates a tort victim for proven harm. Recovery requires the plaintiff to establish the extent of the injury and the corresponding sum with reasonable certainty given the nature of the tort and available evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Austin Abbott sues a publisher for a false statement that damaged his professional reputation. He presents evidence of lost consulting contracts and emotional distress but cannot quantify every future client. The jury may award adequate compensation once he proves the extent of harm with as much certainty as the circumstances permit.
Alfred Ashford proves that a magazine article falsely accused him of professional misconduct and caused lost speaking engagements. Although exact future losses are difficult to calculate, the jury may award adequate compensation for the proven reputational harm without requiring itemized proof of every consequence.
The plaintiff must establish both the extent of the harm and the monetary amount representing adequate compensation with as much certainty as the nature of the tort and the circumstances permit. Complete precision is not required when the tort itself makes exact quantification impossible.
Supporting sources
No. Once actual injury is shown, general damages for reputation harm are recoverable without itemized proof of every consequence. Requiring exhaustive quantification would often prevent recovery in cases where serious harm is certain but difficult to measure precisely.
Supporting sources
…then sued in state court, claiming that the application of the Landmarks Law constituted a taking of their property without just compensation. The trial court upheld the law, but the Appellate Division reversed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and upheld the law. Held: The restrictions imposed by…
…state interference with private property—that property shall not be taken without due process nor for a public purpose without just compensation
…damage to reputation is recurringly difficult to prove and that requiring actual proof would repeatedly destroy any chance for adequate compensation
…vary according to the particular provision of the Bill of Rights which is invoked. The right not to have property taken without just compensation
…has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment’s command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,[^maj-5] the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures,[^maj-6] and the Eighth’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.[^maj-7] On the other hand, this Court in…
Anthony Arnold owns coastal land that a new environmental regulation bars from all development. The rule leaves the parcel without any economically beneficial use. Because the restriction functions as a per se taking, the state must provide adequate compensation unless background nuisance principles already prohibited the intended activity.
Yes, unless the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of nuisance or property law at the time the owner acquired the land. Such a total regulatory wipeout is treated as the equivalent of a physical appropriation requiring just compensation.
Supporting sources