Citation network
United States Vs. Central Eureka Mining Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 16, 1958
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
-
United States v. CentralSearch
-
Eureka Mining Co. - 357 U.S. 155 (1958) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CentralSearch
-
Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155 (1958) United States v. CentralSearch
-
The court sustained the demurrer, holding that the damages were not compensable. Oro Fina Consolidated Mines, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 118 Ct.Cl. 18, 92 F.Supp. 1016. Accord, Alaska-Pacific Consolidated Mining Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 166 take physical possession of the gold mines or of the equipment connected with them. Cf. United States v. PeweeSearch
-
taking as being a question properly turning upon the particular circumstances of each case. See Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSearch
-
action in the form of regulation can so diminish the value of property as to constitute a taking. E.g., United States v. KansasSearch
-
profitable use of his property is not necessarily enough to establish the owner's right to compensation. See Mugler v. KansasSearch
-
regulation which, without saying so, requires compensation to be paid for resulting losses of income. E.g., Hamilton v. KentuckySearch
-
Jacob Ruppert, Inc. v. CaffeySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. CaltexSearch
-
Homestake Mining Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 122 Ct.Cl. 690, and Central Eureka Mining Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
governmental action is an injunction, rather than an action for just compensation. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSearch
-
rescinded, dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim under the Fifth Amendment. Oro Fina Consol. Mines, Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
basis for their contentions of arbitrary and unauthorized action. The Court of Claims, in Idaho Maryland Mines Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
do no more than waive limited defenses. See, e.g., Act of Sept. 25, 1950, 64 Stat. 1032, involved in California v. UnitedSearch
-
Act of June 15, 1946, 60 Stat. 1227, involved in Zephyr Aircraft Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. MilleSearch
-
existed before, see, e.g., Act of June 14, Page 357 U. S. 177 1935, 49 Stat. 2078, involved in Stubbs v. UnitedSearch
-
Act of June 25, 1938, 52 Stat. 1399, involved in Creech v. UnitedSearch
-
existing legal principles, see, e.g., Act of May 11, 1948, 62 Stat. 1350, involved in Hempstead Warehouse Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
than that limited waiver. See, e.g., Act of Aug. 24, 1949, 63 Stat. 1169, involved in Breinig Bros., Inc. v. UnitedSearch
-
Act of Oct. 18, 1951, 65 Stat. A124, involved in Watson v. UnitedSearch
-
part of the United States Government. See, e.g., Act of July 16, 1952, 66 Stat. A206, A207, involved in Griffith v. UnitedSearch
-
and Act of Aug. 25, 1950, 64 Stat. A191, involved in Booth v. UnitedSearch
-
of liability, as Page 357 U. S. 178 it did in the Act of March 1, 1929, 45 Stat. 2345, involved in Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
defenses than the statute of limitations. See, e.g., the Act of May 28, 1928, 45 Stat. 2001, involved in Alcock v. UnitedSearch
-
clear what issues remain to be litigated. See, e.g., Act of July 2, 1956, 70 Stat. A103, involved in Kramer v. UnitedSearch
-
Act of July 16, 1952, 66 Stat. A206, involved in Griffith v. UnitedSearch
-
Act of March 19, 1951, 65 Stat. 5, involved in Board of County Comm'rs v. UnitedSearch
-
had necessitated hasty and experimental governmental action resulting in disproportionate hardships, see Nolan Bros. v. UnitedSearch
-
Mansfield v. UnitedSearch
-
has also been attached to the fact that Congress regarded the governmental action to have been wrongful. See Hawkins v. UnitedSearch
-
has not made its intention quite clear, the court has approached its task with caution, see Hempstead Warehouse Corp. v. UnitedSearch
-
that special jurisdictional statutes Page 357 U. S. 179 should be strictly construed. See, e.g., California v. UnitedSearch
-
United States v. CummingSearch
-
That decision also governed the companion cases of Homestake Mining Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Government took the ceremonial step of planting the American flag on the mining premises, cf. United States v. PeweeSearch
-
debatable that respondents Page 357 U. S. 182 would have been entitled to compensation. See United States v. PeweeSearch
-
See United States v. KansasSearch
-
Richards v. WashingtonSearch
-
by American armed forces to meet the exigencies of the military situation in a theatre of war, see United States v. CaltexSearch
-
from its owners during wartime in the interest of the common good. Cases such as Yakus v. UnitedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. CentralSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial