Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
345 U.S. 146 · Decided March 16, 1953 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States was decided on March 16, 1953 by a vote of 6–2. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Hugo L. Black wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 345 U.S. 146 · 73 S. Ct. 592 · 97 L. Ed. 2d 912 · 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2552
- Docket number
- 258
- Decided
- March 16, 1953
- Argued
- January 7, 1953
- Court era
- Vinson Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–2
- Majority opinion
- Hugo L. Black
- Opinion assigned by
- Hugo L. Black
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Hugo L. Black | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Stanley F. Reed | Majority | |
| Justice Felix Frankfurter | Majority | |
| Justice William O. Douglas | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Robert H. Jackson | Majority | |
| Justice Harold H. Burton | Majority | |
| Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson | Dissent | |
| Justice Sherman Minton | Majority |
Did not participate: Tom C. Clark.
Full case caption
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. et al. v. United States et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1952-063, docket 1952-063-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the County of Fairfax
- United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
- Atchison v. Public Utilities Commission of California
- Kaufman v. Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles et Commerciales, S. A.
- Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A. G. v. McGrath
- Guessefeldt v. McGrath
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks
- General Box Co. v. United States
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- Gurley v. Rhoden
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- United States v. Caltex (Philippines), Inc.
- United States v. CardiffLaw held unconstitutional
- City of New York v. New York
- Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding
- Shaughnessy v. United States ex Rel. Mezei
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in the County of Fairfax
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error