About: Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel   Goto Sponge  NotDistinct  Permalink

An Entity of Type : yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases, within Data Space : dbpedia.org associated with source document(s)

Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.(Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which ha

AttributesValues
rdf:type
rdfs:label
  • Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
rdfs:comment
  • Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.(Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which ha
sameAs
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
foaf:name
  • Eastern Enterprises, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
prov:wasDerivedFrom
has abstract
  • Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act (Coal Act) constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking of property which required the Act to be invalidated. The import of this decision is that it was made in the context of a purely economic regulation. The plurality examines the statute and its resultant harm as an ad hoc factual inquiry based on factors delineated in Penn Central such as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.(Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City), The decision thereby moved beyond the traditional notions of equal protection which had been applied to economic regulation since the time of (Lochner v. New York), requiring extreme deference to Congress, and applied a regulatory takings analysis to the problem resulting in a much less deferential result. While the plurality recognizes that this is not a traditional takings case where the government appropriates private property for public use, they also state this is the type of case where the "Armstrong Principle" of preventing the government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. (Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960)) However, while the plurality seems to invalidate this particular law on takings grounds, the concurrences and the dissents warn of such an analysis as this should actually be examined under substantive due process or ex post facto theories.
ArgueDate
  • --03-04
ArgueYear
Concurrence
  • Thomas
DecideDate
  • --06-25
DecideYear
Dissent
  • Breyer
  • Stevens
Holding
  • Whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property.
JoinDissent
  • Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
  • Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
LawsApplied
Litigants
  • Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
Prior
  • 25920.0
SCOTUS
USPage
USVol
citation
  • 172800.0
Concurrence/Dissent
  • Kennedy
JoinPlurality
  • Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
Plurality
  • O'Connor
http://purl.org/voc/vrank#hasRank
is Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage of
is Wikipage redirect of
is Wikipage disambiguates of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git21 as of Mar 09 2019


Alternative Linked Data Documents: PivotViewer | iSPARQL | ODE     Content Formats:       RDF       ODATA       Microdata      About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3230 as of Apr 1 2019, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc25), Single-Server Edition (61 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2019 OpenLink Software