It belongs to that class of phrases which do not admit of precise definition, but the meaning and application of which must be arrived at by what this court elsewhere has called "the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion."

—upon property for the public use, whether it be for the whole state or some limited portion of the community, and those laws provide for a mode of confirming or contesting the charge thus imposed, in ordinary courts of justice, with such notice to the person, or such proceeding in regard to the property as is appropriate to the nature of the case, the judgment in such …

The taking by a state of the private property of one person or corporation, without the owner's consent, for the private use of another, is not due process of law, and is a violation of the fourteenth article of amendment of the constitution of the United States.

—declining to overturn a state tax assessment on due process grounds, and noting the "remarkable" fact that the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause had been invoked very rarely since the founding, but that in the short time since the Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified, "the docket [had become] crowded with cases in which [the Court was] asked to hold that State …

—the opinion was expressed that it is wiser to ascertain their intent and application by the "gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion, as the cases presented for decision shall require, with the reasoning on which such decisions may be founded." p. 104.

—the fourteenth amendment cannot be availed of'as a means of bringing to the test of the decision of this court the abstract opinions of every unsuccessful litigant in the state court of the justice of the decision against him, and of the merits of the legislation on which such a decision may be founded.'To use the language of Mr. Justice Field in Railway Co.

The state in its discretion may lay such assessments in proportion to position, frontage, area, market value, or to benefits estimated by commissioners.

Nichols § 1.42 [2], at 1-203; see also Freund § 511, at 546-47 ("[I] t may be said that the state takes property by eminent domain because it is useful to the public, and under the police power because it is harmful, or as Justice Bradley put it, because `the property itself is the cause of the public detriment

Individual cases falling within this zone must be determined as they arise from time to time by what this court has called, in another connection

In such a case it has been frequently decided that the judicial procedure constitutes due process of law and supplies every requirement for due notice and hearing.

[CITATION] RECLAMATION DISTRICT v. Hagar