Citation network
Hodel Vs. Irving
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 18, 1987
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 704 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Hodel v. IrvingSearch
-
U.S. 704 (1987) Hodel v. IrvingSearch
-
succession. App. to Juris. Statement 21a-26a. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. Irving v. ClarkSearch
-
would have inherited. This is sufficient injury-in-fact to satisfy Article III of the Constitution. See Singleton v. WulffSearch
-
not open to objection on the ground that it permits a litigant to raise third parties' rights. Tyler v. JudgesSearch
-
Congress, acting pursuant to its broad authority to regulate the descent and devise of Indian trust lands, Jefferson v. FinkSearch
-
in regulating property rights in ways that may adversely affect the owners. See Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
Goldblatt v. HempsteadSearch
-
is firmly established, and has been regularly and recently reaffirmed. See, e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
Agins v. TiburonSearch
-
Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
Penn Central Transportation Co. Page 481 U. S. 714 v. NewSearch
-
constitutional. But the character of the Government regulation here is extraordinary. In Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
one's family in particular -- has been part of the Anglo-American legal system since feudal times. See United States v. PerkinsSearch
-
obviate the need for descent and devise, a total abrogation of these rights cannot be upheld. But cf. Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
and devise of property without implicating the guarantees of the Just Compensation Clause. See, e.g., Irving Trust Co. v. DaySearch
-
the owners of such interests from further subdividing them among future heirs on pain of escheat. See Texaco, Inc. v. ShortSearch
-
Central balancing test. This is neither overbreadth analysis nor novel. See, e.g., Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
JUSTICE MARSHALL and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring. I find nothing in today's opinion that would limit Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
giving rise to the property rights and expectations at issue here make this case the unusual one. See Irving v. ClarkSearch
-
between rights taken and rights left untouched, is indistinguishable from the statute that was at issue in Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
Because that comparison is determinative of whether there has been a taking, see Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
avoid or mitigate the consequences of the deprivation simply because the property is relatively inexpensive. Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
-
demonstrates that the statute is not arbitrary, see Delaware Tribal Business Committee v. WeeksSearch
-
comply with its provisions before their mineral interests were extinguished. As the Court recognized in United States v. LockeSearch
-
Id. at 413 U. S. 615 . See also City Council of Los Angeles v. TaxpayersSearch
-
challenges under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause to a variety of statutes of the kind that we upheld in Texaco v. ShortSearch
-
Earlier in the opinion, we noted that, in Wilson v. IsemingerSearch
-
Usery v. TurnerSearch
-
Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U. S. 1 , 428 U. S. 17 , n. 16 (1976) (citing Welch v. HenrySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hodel v. IrvingSearch
-
Irving v. ClarkSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial