hether a
"taking is for a public purpose."
[636] Justice Reed concurring in United States ex rel. T.V.A. _v._
Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 557 (1946).
[637] Bragg _v._ Weaver, 251 U.S. 57-59 (1919).--It is no longer open to
question that the State legislature may confer upon a municipality the
authority to determine such necessity for itself.--Joslin Mfg. Co. _v._
Providence, 262 U.S. 668, 678 (1923).
[638] Rindge Co. _v._ Los Angeles County, 262 U.S. 700 (1923).
[639] Pumpelly _v._ Green Bay Company, 13 Wall. 166, 177-178 (1872);
Welch _v._ Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909); Pennsylvania Coal Co. _v._ Mahon,
260 U.S. 393 (1922). _See also_ comparable cases involving the Federal
Government and discussed under the Fifth Amendment, United States _v._
Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 (1903); United States _v._ Cress, 243 U.S. 316
(1917); Portsmouth Harbor L. & H. Co. _v._ United States, 260 U.S. 327
(1922); United States _v._ Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). _See also_ the
cases hereinafter discussed on the limitations on "uncompensated
takings."
[640] Long Island Water Supply Co. _v._ Brooklyn, 166 U.S. 685 (1897)
[641] Clark _v._ Nash, 198 U.S. 361 (1905).
[642] Strickley _v._ Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906).
[643] Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. _v._. Alabama Interstate
Power Co., 240 U.S. 30 (1916).
[644] Hendersonville Light & Power Co. _v._. Blue Ridge Interurban R.
Co., 243 U.S. 563 (1917).
[645] Roe _v._ Kansas ex rel. Smith, 278 U.S. 191, 193 (1929).
[646] Dohany _v._ Rogers, 281 U.S. 362 (1930).
[647] Hairston _v._ Danville & W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598 (1908).
[648] Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. _v._ Morristown, 276 U.S. 182 (1928).
[649] Otis Co. _v._ Ludlow Mfg. Co., 201 U.S. 140, 151, 153 (1906). _See
also_ Head _v._ Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9, 20-21 (1885).
[650] Missouri P.R. Co. _v._ Nebraska ex rel. Board of Transportation,
164 U.S. 403, 416 (1896). The State court in this case was declared to
have acknowledged that the taking was not for a public use. Hence, its
reversal by the Supreme Court did not conflict with the later
observation by the Court that "no case is recalled where this Court has
condemned * * * a taking upheld by the State court as a taking for
public uses in conformity with its laws."--_See_ Hairston _v._ Danville
& W.R. Co., 208 U.S. 598, 607 (1908).
[651] Backus (A.) Jr. and Sons _v._ Port Street Union Depot Co., 169
U.S. 557, 573, 575 (1898).
[652] McGovern _v._ Ne
|