Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

dominant servitude

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 350 U.S. 222 - United States v. Twin City Power Co. · 1956Most cited · 420 citing opinions

The interest of the United States in the flow of a navigable stream originates in the Commerce Clause. That Clause speaks in terms of power, not of property. But the power is a dominant one which can be asserted to the exclusion of any competing or conflicting one. The power is a privilege which we have called 'a dominant servitude' or 'a superior navigation easement.

How the Supreme Court has restated “dominant servitude”

195419601967 most cited: 350 U.S. 222 - United States v. Twin City Power Co. (1956)
first stateddeparted

Each Supreme Court definition of “dominant servitude,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “dominant servitude”

195019601980200020202030238

Court decisions citing the 3 opinions that defined “dominant servitude” — 1,044 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 3 definitions, chronological · 1954–1967

  1. the dominant servitude, in favor of the United States, under which private persons hold physical properties obstructing navigable waters of the United States and all rights to use the waters of those streams; the exercise of that servitude, without making allowances for preexisting rights under state law, requires clear authorization

  2. This power to regulate navigation confers upon the United States a 'dominant servitude,' which extends to the entire stream and the stream bed below ordinary high-water mark. The proper exercise of this power is not an invasion of any private property rights in the stream or the lands underlying it, for the damage sustained does not result from taking property from riparian owners within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment but from the lawful exercise of a power to which the interests of riparian owners have always been subject.