In reaching this conclusion, Justice Frankfurter first observed that the loss in going concern value, though related in part to intangibles, is property capable of being destroyed by the government so as to give rise to an obligation of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.

no different from the value of the business’ physical property,” and concluded that intangibles such as trade routes of a laundry service were condemnable, upon payment of just compensation, when properly taken for a public use.

[2] Justice Rutledge understood the majority opinion to stand for the proposition that short-term takings of property entail considerations not present where complete title has been taken, and agreed with at least this much of the decision.

Warning that the majority decision "forged new constitutional doctrine," the dissent argued that government was only required to pay just compensation for the property that it actually receives.

That the trade routes were of no use to the government was particularly persuasive to the dissenting Justices, and they argued that if the business was destroyed, the destruction was an unintended incident of the taking of land, and thus not compensable.