Citation network
Keystone Bituminous Vs. Debenedictis
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 09, 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
- Distinguished
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 470 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Keystone Bituminous v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
U.S. 470 (1987) Keystone Bituminous v. DeBenedictisSearch
-
for summary judgment on this facial challenge. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
Page 480 U. S. 473 JUSTICE STEVENS, delivered the opinion of the Court. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
of rights possessed by the owner of a support estate was not considered controlling under our decision in Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
calls for no more than a straightforward application of the Court's decision in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
Tr. of Record in Pennsylvania Coal v. MahonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Motion to Advance for Argument in Pennsylvania Coal v. MahonSearch
-
See 260 U.S. at 396-398, quoting Loan Assn. v. TopekaSearch
-
and in all that happens within the commonwealth. Some existing rights may be modified even in such a case. Rideout v. KnoxSearch
-
even if similar damage is inflicted on others in different places. The damage is not common or public. Wesson v. WashburnSearch
-
Agins v. TiburonSearch
-
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
Block v. HirshSearch
-
The Court distinguished the case before it from a case it had decided eight years earlier, Plymouth Coal Co. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
In Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
Reinman v. LittleSearch
-
five years after the Pennsylvania Coal decision, Justice Holmes joined the Court's unanimous decision in Miller v. SchoeneSearch
-
of its police power to prevent the impending danger was justified, and did not require compensation. See also Euclid v. AmblerSearch
-
Omnia Commercial Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
cases reaffirm the important role that the nature of the state action plays in our takings analysis. See Goldblatt v. HempsteadSearch
-
Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. LosSearch
-
See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. NewSearch
-
California Reduction Co. v. SanitarySearch
-
Kimball Laundry Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Beer Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
See Mugler, 123 U.S. at 123 U. S. 664 . In Agins v. TiburonSearch
-
piece of property requires the payment of just compensation. This point is illustrated by our decision in Hodel v. VirginiaSearch
-
not be decided except in an actual factual setting that makes such a decision necessary. See Socialist Labor Party v. GilliganSearch
-
Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
and, in turn, this Court, is whether the 'mere enactment' of the Surface Mining Act constitutes a taking. See Agins v. TiburonSearch
-
that can be made of property effects a taking if it 'denies an owner economically viable use of his land. . . .' Agins v. TiburonSearch
-
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
U.S. at 438 U. S. 130 -131. Similarly, in Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
a taking, because the footage represents a distinct segment of property for takings law purposes. Cf. Gorieb v. FoxSearch
-
Motion to Advance for Argument Page 480 U. S. 499 in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
a separate segment of property for Takings Clause purposes. 438 U.S. at 438 U. S. 130 . Likewise, in Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
that the prohibition against impairing the obligation of contracts is not to be read literally. W.B. Worthen Co. v. ThomasSearch
-
Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSearch
-
the Court has refused to give the Clause a literal reading. Thus, in the landmark case of Home Building & Loan Assn. v. BlaisdellSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial