Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago
1897 United States Supreme Court case
Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897), was a ruling that determined the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to provide just compensation for seizing private property.
Background
Chicago City Council decided on October 9, 1880, to widen Rockwell Street, which required appropriating land owned by private individuals as well as a right of way owned by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. In a jury trial, the jury awarded the individual land owners the fair value of their land but awarded the railroad company only $1. The railroad company appealed.
The City of Chicago contended that due process of law was purely procedural and only required allowing the railroad company's case to be heard: "[T]he question as to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the railroad company was one of local law merely, and ... the company appearing and having full opportunity to be heard, the requirement of due process of law was observed."
Majority opinion
Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court. Justice Brewer was the sole dissenter, and Chief Justice Melville Fuller took no part.
"Regard must be had to substance, not to form"
Justice Harlan argued that the concept of due process of law required fair compensation to be given for any private property seized by the state.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago” is 1897 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Chicago, Burlington and Quincy, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “1897 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 23, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q5095400. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1897 and 1880.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago primary sources, Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago archive and Chicago research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.