Citation network
Eastern Enterprises Vs. Apfel
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 04, 1998
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
-
U.S. 498 (1998) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Eastern Enterprises V. ApfelSearch
-
equitable relief for Takings Clause violations without discussing the Tucker Act's applicability. See, e. g., Babbitt v. YoupeeSearch
-
the Takings Clause. Pp. 522-537. (a) Economic regulation such as the Coal Act may effect a taking. United States v. SecuritySearch
-
See Andrus v. AllardSearch
-
Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
Usery v. TurnerSearch
-
Connolly v. PensionSearch
-
and Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. ConstructionSearch
-
because it can deprive citizens of legitimate expectations and upset settled transactions. Gen eral Motors Corp. v. RomeinSearch
-
retroactive statutes, and that distrust is reflected in this Court's due process jurisprudence. For example, in Usery v. TurnerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
way when enacting a retroactive law. This formulation has been repeated in numerous recent cases, e. g., United States v. CarltonSearch
-
of the legislative temptation to use it as a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals, Landgraf v. USISearch
-
of retroactive effect, which is a significant determinant in a statute's constitutionality, e. g., United States v. CarltonSearch
-
Id., at 3-4, App. (CA1) 869-870. See also Mine Workers Health and Retirement Funds v. RobinsonSearch
-
upholding both the Commissioner's interpretation of the Coal Act and the Act's constitutionality. Eastern Enterprises v. ShalalaSearch
-
F. Supp. 684 (Mass. 1996). The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. Eastern Enterprises v. ChaterSearch
-
analyzed Eastern's claim that the Coal Act effects an uncompensated taking under the three factors set out in Connolly v. PensionSearch
-
n. 30, it is appropriate that we clarify the basis of our jurisdiction over petitioner's claims. 4See, e. g., Holland v. KeenanSearch
-
Lindsey Coal Mining Co. v. ChaterSearch
-
Davon, Inc. v. ShalalaSearch
-
In re Chateaugay Corp., 53 F.3d 478 , 486-496 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. LTV Steel Co. v. ShalalaSearch
-
unless Congress has withdrawn the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction in the relevant statute. See, e. g., Ruckelshaus v. MonsantoSearch
-
relief is arguably not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. See United States v. MitchellSearch
-
see also, e. g., Bowen v. MassachusettsSearch
-
relief, see In re Chateaugay Corp., 53 F.3d 478 , 493 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. LTV Steel Co. v. ShalalaSearch
-
Southeast Kansas Community Action Program, Inc. v. SecretarySearch
-
jurisdiction, until compensation has been sought and refused in the Court of Federal Claims, see Bay View, Inc. v. AhtnaSearch
-
Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. MadiganSearch
-
the availability of a Tucker Act remedy renders premature any takings claim in federal district court. See Preseault v. ICCSearch
-
Student Loan Marketing Assn. v. RileySearch
-
F.3d 397 , 401 (CADC), cert. denied, 522 U. S. 913 (1997). Instead, as we explained in Duke Power Co. v. CarolinaSearch
-
relief for Takings Clause violations without discussing the applicability of the Tucker Act. See, e. g., Babbitt v. YoupeeSearch
-
Hodel v. Ir-Search
-
upheld similar statutory schemes against Takings Clause challenges. See Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. ConstructionSearch
-
in previous cases. Brown Shoe Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
Armstrong v. UnitedSearch
-
in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use. See United States v. SecuritySearch
-
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. NewSearch
-
as the Coal Act may nonetheless effect a taking, see Security Industrial Bank, supra, at 78. See also Calder v. BullSearch
-
a party challenging governmental action as an unconstitutional taking bears a substantial burden. See United States v. SperrySearch
-
is essentially ad hoc and fact intensive, Kaiser Aetna v. UnitedSearch
-
is informed by previous decisions considering the constitutionality of somewhat similar legislative schemes. In Usery v. TurnerSearch
-
internal quotation marks omitted). This Court again considered the constitutionality of the MPPAA in Connolly v. PensionSearch
-
challenges to the MPPAA under the Due Process and Takings Clauses in Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. ConstructionSearch
-
physical occupation of Eastern's property of the kind that we have viewed as a per se taking. See Loretto v. TeleprompterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial