I found this paper:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1944647

So, apparently in WW2.

Some excerpts from the paper can be found here: http://www.volokh.com/2011/10/18/a-historical-violation-of-the-third-amendment/

However, the whole third amendment is:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Soldiers were also quarter in private homes during the Civil War. Obviously, it can be done as long as the country is at war and there have been laws passed to oversee how the quartering of soldiers is conducted. The third amendment isn't much of a protection, as the final clause allows it to be violated without restriction.

There was a case in 2001, where a class action was brought against an Air Force Base for allegedly dumping chemicals so that they contaminated residences surrounding the base. Johnson v. U.S., 208 F.R.D. 148 W.D.Tex.,2001. That decision was about class certification, so it's not clear what happened to the 3rd amendment claim.

There was another case brought in 2001 by a homeowners association for the military using their airspace without consent. Custer County Action Ass'n v. Garvey, 256 F.3d 1024, C.A.10,2001. The Court held that the 3rd Amendment did not apply and only gave the issue a cursory discussion.

The best case that litigants were successful was a case in 1978 where striking prison guards were evicted from their on site residences by members of the National Guard. Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957, C.A.N.Y., 1982.

The discussion of the claim is as follows:

We first address the novel claim based on the Third Amendment, a provision rarely invoked in the federal courts. We agree with the district court's conclusion that the National Guardsmen are “Soldiers” within the meaning of the Third Amendment and that they are, except perhaps when “federalized” by unit under 10 U.S.C. ss 331, 332, 672, state employees under the control of the Governor. Moreover, we agree with the district court that the Third Amendment is incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment for application to the states.

The crux of appellants' Third Amendment claim depends on whether the nature of their property interest in their residences is sufficient to bring it within the ambit of the Third Amendment's proscription against quartering troops “in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” The absence of any case law directly construing this provision presents a serious interpretive problem, and little illumination can be gleaned from the debates of the Constitutional Convention. We are thus left with the language of the Third Amendment and analogies to other areas of law. Under a technical and literal reading of the language, the Third Amendment would only protect fee simple owners of houses. We reject such a formalistic construction for the same reasons that it has been rejected in analogous contexts.

The Third Amendment's reference to the word “house” does not raise a problem. As defined by Webster's Third International Dictionary (1961)-a structure intended for human habitation-the term readily encompasses the various modern forms of dwelling.

The Third Amendment was designed to assure a fundamental right to privacy. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 1681, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965); Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 81 S.Ct. 1752, 6 L.Ed.2d 989 (1961), at 552, 81 S.Ct. at 1781 (Douglas, J., dissenting), 549, 81 S.Ct. at 1779 (Harlan, J., dissenting). Since the privacy interest arises out of the use and enjoyment of property, compare Griswold, supra (privacy in marital relationship), an inquiry into the nature of the property-based privacy interest seeking protection becomes necessary. In closely analogous contexts rigid notions of ownership are not prerequisites to constitutional protections. When determining whether a legitimate expectation of privacy exists for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, for instance, the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that a protected privacy interest in a place must be “based on a common-law interest in real or personal property.” Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143-44 n.12, 99 S.Ct. 421, 430-31 n.12, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Rather, the Court stated that “one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Id. Similarly, in applying the due process clause, the Court has extended its procedural protection “well beyond actual ownership of real estate, chattels, or money,” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2706, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and has interpreted “property” as “not limited (to) a few rigid, technical forms,” but as “denot(ing) a broad range of interests that are secured by ‘existing rules or understandings.’ ” Perry v. Sinderman, 408 U.S. 593, 601, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2699, 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972). A rigid reading of the word “Owner” in the Third Amendment would be wholly anomalous when viewed, for example, alongside established Fourth Amendment doctrine, since it would lead to an apartment tenant's being denied a privacy right against the forced quartering of troops, while that same tenant, or his guest, or even a hotel visitor, would have a legitimate privacy interest protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. See, e.g., Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) (friend's apartment); United States v. Agapito, 620 F.2d 324, 333-35 (2d Cir.) (hotel room), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 834, 101 S.Ct. 107, 66 L.Ed.2d 40 (1980); United States v. Bell, 488 F.Supp. 371 (D.D.C.1980) (apartment tenant).

Accordingly we hold that property-based privacy interests protected by the Third Amendment are not limited solely to those arising out of fee simple ownership but extend to those recognized and permitted by society as founded on lawful occupation or possession with a legal right to exclude others. Rakas, supra, 439 U.S. at 143-44 n.12, 99 S.Ct. at 430-31 n.12. Cf. United States v. Ochs, 595 F.2d 1247, 1253 (2d Cir.) (complete “dominion and control” over car creates privacy interest), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 955, 100 S.Ct. 435, 62 L.Ed.2d 328 (1979). While the determination looks first to state law as the “primary source of property rights,” Quinn v. Syracuse Model Neighborhood Corp., 613 F.2d 438, 448 (2d Cir. 1980), ultimately the issue is one of “federal constitutional law.” Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1, 9, 98 S.Ct. 1554, 1560, 56 L.Ed.2d 30 (1978) (quoted in Quinn, supra, 613 F.2d at 447).

Applying these principles, as a matter of state law appellants throughout the strike had a lawful interest in their living quarters sufficient to entitle them to exclude others. Even assuming arguendo, as the district court found, that appellants' occupancy interest was merely incidental to their employment, they could not be deprived of that interest without notice, a hearing and judicial determination, N.Y. Real Prop. Actions and Proceedings Law s 713(11), none of which was accorded them. If, as we conclude, appellants had a more substantial tenancy interest, the procedural protections afforded them under state law would be even greater. See e.g., id., at ss 711, 713; N.Y. Real Prop. Law s 228. Thus, even if pre-deprivation due process procedures were not available to them, they retained a protectible interest in their quarters until they were lawfully deprived of it.

Appellants' interest, moreover, reasonably entitled them to a legitimate expectation of privacy protected by the Third Amendment. Appellants' rooms, which they furnished and for which they were charged a monthly rent, were their homes. They did not maintain separate residences or have alternative housing available in the event of an emergency. During the entire two-year period preceding the strike, appellants did not reside in any other dwelling. These factors supporting the existence of a tenancy-type interest are reinforced by the Department's Directive and Rules, which repeatedly refer to the occupants as tenants and at one place to Mid-Orange as the equivalent of a landlord. See Lahti v. State, 98 Misc.2d 829, 414 N.Y.S.2d 607, 609 (Ct.Cl.1979) (terms used in an instrument, while not conclusive, are indicative of parties' intent). Although the Rules and Directive placed restrictions on the terms of the occupancy, the record does not reveal whether those restrictions, such as the prohibition of overnight guests and the provision for inspections at any time, were ever in fact enforced. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to appellants, we cannot rule out an inference that the Rules signed by both the Superintendent and appellants was tantamount to a lease. See, e.g., Miller v. City of New York, 15 N.Y.2d 34, 255 N.Y.S.2d 78, 80, 203 N.E.2d 478, 480 (1964);

To the best of my knowledge, Engblom v. Carey is the most recent (meritorious) Third Amendment claim against the government.

1979 saw a state-wide strike by law enforcement and correctional officers in New York State, and that April prison guards at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility elected to participate. At the time, the guards lived on-site in accommodations provided by the prison. When the strike was called, the prison superintendent declared a state of emergency, issued an order forbidding striking guards from entering the prison's grounds, and called in the National Guard. As a result, the guards were evicted from their residences, which were reassigned to the Guardsmen.

The Second Circuit found that this was a Third Amendment violation, making three notable holdings: 1) that "tenants" counted as "owners" under the Third Amendment; 2) that National Guardsmen are "soldiers" even when mobilized by a state governor, and; 3) that the Third Amendment is an incorporated amendment that applies to the states as well as the federal government.