Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
BedRoc Limited v. United States (view source)
Revision as of 01:12, November 4, 2007
, 01:12, November 4, 2007New page: In ''BedRoc Limited v. United States'', 541 U.S. 176 (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court held in favor of private property rights and against a claim by the federal government that sand...
In ''BedRoc Limited v. United States'', 541 U.S. 176 (2004), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held in favor of private property rights and against a claim by the [[federal]] government that sand and gravel on the property were "valuable minerals" reserved to the [[United States]] in land grants issued under the [[Pittman Act]].
Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the 6-3 opinion for the Court, although only three justices joined his opinion. Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Stephen Breyer]] concurred.
Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] wrote a dissent, joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] and [[David Souter]], that was notable for its reliance on foreign law. They invoked the views of a foreign supreme court justice in order to depart from the plain meaning of a [[United States]] law.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]] wrote the 6-3 opinion for the Court, although only three justices joined his opinion. Justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Stephen Breyer]] concurred.
Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] wrote a dissent, joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] and [[David Souter]], that was notable for its reliance on foreign law. They invoked the views of a foreign supreme court justice in order to depart from the plain meaning of a [[United States]] law.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]