Difference between revisions of "Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: In ''Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis'', 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that that a regulation banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property ...) |
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | In ''Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis'', 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that that a regulation banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property does not require compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]] [[Takings Clause]]. | + | In '''''Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis''''', 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that that a regulation banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property does not require compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]] [[Takings Clause]]. |
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | [[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]] | ||
[[category:Fifth Amendment]] | [[category:Fifth Amendment]] | ||
Revision as of 03:29, May 3, 2008
In Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that that a regulation banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property does not require compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.