Berman v. Parker
E579571
Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Berman v. Parker canonical | 2 |
| Berman et al. v. Parker et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T6250621 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Berman v. Parker Context triple: [Kelo v. City of New London, appliedPrecedent, Berman v. Parker]
-
A.
Parker v. Davis
Parker v. Davis was a post–Civil War U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of making paper money legal tender for preexisting debts under the Legal Tender Acts.
-
B.
Baker v. Nelson
Baker v. Nelson was a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that summarily dismissed a same-sex marriage claim, effectively allowing states to ban such marriages until it was later overturned by Obergefell v. Hodges.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Berman v. Parker Target entity description: Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
-
A.
Parker v. Davis
Parker v. Davis was a post–Civil War U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the constitutionality of making paper money legal tender for preexisting debts under the Legal Tender Acts.
-
B.
Baker v. Nelson
Baker v. Nelson was a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case that summarily dismissed a same-sex marriage claim, effectively allowing states to ban such marriages until it was later overturned by Obergefell v. Hodges.
-
C.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
D.
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
-
E.
Gebhart v. Belton
Gebhart v. Belton was a landmark Delaware school segregation case whose rulings in favor of Black students became one of the four consolidated cases decided in Brown v. Board of Education, contributing to the Supreme Court’s rejection of “separate but equal” in public education.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (45)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
constitutional law case ⓘ landmark eminent domain case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
eminent domain
ⓘ
redevelopment of blighted areas ⓘ urban renewal programs ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
eminent domain law ⓘ land use law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 1954-10-19 ⓘ |
| citation | 348 U.S. 26 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Fifth Amendment Takings Clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1954-11-22 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| effect |
endorsed broad deference to legislative judgments about public purpose
ⓘ
expanded governmental authority to condemn property for redevelopment ⓘ |
| fullName |
Berman et al. v. Parker et al.
ⓘ
linked to:
Berman v. Parker
|
| geographicFocus | Southwest Washington, D.C. ⓘ |
| holding |
Congress may authorize the taking of private property as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan to address urban blight
ⓘ
Once the legislature has spoken, the public purpose of a taking is primarily for the legislature, not the courts, to determine ⓘ Public use under the Fifth Amendment includes public purpose and is not limited to use by the public ⓘ |
| involves | District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | District of Columbia ⓘ |
| keyPhrase |
public welfare is broad and inclusive
ⓘ
values are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
meaning of public use in the Takings Clause
ⓘ
scope of eminent domain power under the Fifth Amendment ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | William O. Douglas ⓘ |
| page | 26 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Max Morris Berman ⓘ |
| precedentFor | Kelo v. City of New London ⓘ |
| recognizedPower | taking non-blighted property as part of a larger redevelopment plan ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
police power
ⓘ
public purpose ⓘ public use ⓘ urban renewal ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | John M. Parker ⓘ |
| result | upheld the constitutionality of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 1945 ⓘ |
| volume | 348 ⓘ |
| vote | 9–0 ⓘ |
| year | 1954 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Berman v. Parker Description of subject: Berman v. Parker is a landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that broadly interpreted the government’s power of eminent domain under the Fifth Amendment to allow property takings for comprehensive redevelopment and public-purpose projects.
Referenced by (3)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Berman v. Parker