U.S. vs. Cooley
Irwin Leiter analyzed the United States v. 58.16 Acres of Land and George Cooley, 478 F2d 1055 (7th Cir. 1973) as a lead article on Eminent Domain Law in the Seventh Circuit Review of the Chicago Kent Law Review, Volume 51, 1976, №2.
The Cooley case, as it was known, was one of the few times where a landowner condemnee was successful in fighting the Federal government’s sovereign power of eminent domain. This novel and seminal condemnation case involved damage to George Cooley’s land by the Army Corps of Engineers, who constructed a dam on the Illinois Kaskaskia River for flood control. When Cooley repeatedly complained, the Army decided that to repair the damage exceeded the land’s value, so they decided to simply condemn his entire farm, claiming it was for public use. The taking of the land was done by a one-sided hearing or “quick take” where the government appearing alone states it’s for a public purpose, shows the apparent value of the property, although this is finalized after the taking, deposits the amount for it ($72,000) and has the U.S. District Court declare the condemnation.
Cooley filed an answer stating only their land was taken, not tracts in between, that the taking was arbitrary, discriminatory, in bad faith, and not for any public purpose since taking his land could in no way further flood control and that he should have had a right to a hearing before his property was taken. The district court refused to schedule a hearing before the actual taking occurred, stating it had no jurisdiction but agreed that Cooley’s arguments should have been heard.
Cooley appealed to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals while the district court did say the order of possession for him to move out. The Seventh Circuit agreed that he did have the right to appeal to the court and that in this rare instance, the government’s action was arbitrary and in bad faith even if the public purpose test was met, which the court did not agree upon.
The Cooley case is essential as recognizing a “narrow exception” to the general rule where a condemnation case cannot be reviewed and has been cited many times by landowners since, for this reason, and in an attempt to show lack of public purpose before their land is condemned. It is an exception but an important one.
