This HTML5 document contains 88 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

PrefixNamespace IRI
dcthttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n14http://dbpedia.org/resource/Penn_Central_v.
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
dbpedia-wikidatahttp://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/
n2http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eastern_Enterprises_v.
umbel-rchttp://umbel.org/umbel/rc/
n21http://dbpedia.org/resource/Lochner_v.
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n11http://yago-knowledge.org/resource/Eastern_Enterprises_v.
n18http://www.ontologydesignpatterns.org/ont/dul/DUL.owl#
n19http://dbpedia.org/resource/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.
n7http://dbpedia.org/property/concurrence/
n25http://dbpedia.org/resource/Penn_Central_Transportation_Co._v.
n22http://dbpedia.org/resource/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases,
n17http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/m.
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n16http://purl.org/voc/vrank#
n24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Enterprises_v.
n12http://dbpedia.org/resource/Empress_Casino_Joliet_Corp._v.
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/
n27http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Enterprises_v._Apfel?oldid=
Subject Item
n2:_Apfel
rdf:type
yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases yago:Case107308889 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity owl:Thing yago:Abstraction100002137 umbel-rc:Event yago:Happening107283608 n18:Situation yago:Event100029378 wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:LegalCase dbo:Case yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase dbo:UnitOfWork
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
owl:sameAs
n11:_Apfel n17:05zzkz8 wikidata:Q5330128 dbpedia-wikidata:Q5330128
dct:subject
dbc:1998_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Healthcare_in_the_United_States dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbc:Retirement_in_the_United_States dbc:Takings_Clause_case_law dbc:Coal_mining_in_the_United_States dbc:Social_Security_lawsuits dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
dbo:wikiPageID
22444211
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
694942275
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Michael_Allen_Wolf dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases n12:_Giannoulias n14:_New_York dbc:Healthcare_in_the_United_States dbc:1998_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Takings_Clause_case_law dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Rehnquist_Court dbc:Retirement_in_the_United_States dbr:Lists_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_by_volume dbr:Coal_Industry_Retiree_Health_Benefit_Act_of_1992 dbr:Regulatory_takings dbr:List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States n19: dbr:Due_process dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution n21:_New_York n22:_volume_524 dbc:Coal_mining_in_the_United_States n25:_New_York_City dbc:Social_Security_lawsuits dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Regulatory_taking dbr:United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_First_Circuit dbr:Ex_post_facto dbr:Coal_Industry_Retiree_Health_Benefit_Act dbr:Case_citation dbr:Substantive_due_process
foaf:name
Eastern Enterprises, Petitioner v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, et al.
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
n24:_Apfel
prov:wasDerivedFrom
n27:694942275
dbo: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.
dbp:arguedate
--03-04
dbp:argueyear
1998
dbp:concurrence
Thomas
dbp:decidedate
--06-25
dbp:decideyear
1998
dbp:dissent
Breyer Stevens
dbp:holding
Whether a regulatory act constitutes a taking requiring compensation depends on the extent of diminution in the value of the property.
dbp:joindissent
Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:Coal_Industry_Retiree_Health_Benefit_Act_of_1992 dbr:Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:litigants
Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel
dbp:prior
25920.0
dbp:scotus
1994
dbp:uspage
498
dbp:usvol
524
dbp:citation
172800.0
n7:dissent
Kennedy
dbp:joinplurality
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
dbp:plurality
O'Connor
n16:hasRank
_:vb25852531
Subject Item
_:vb25852531
n16:rankValue
0.611924