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
Line 1:
Line 1: − +
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (view source)
Revision as of 10:37, July 14, 2008
, 10:37, July 14, 2008wikify
In '''''Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.''''', 544 U.S. 528 (2005), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] developed a more complex test for determining if a price-control regulation constitutes a "taking" requiring compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]].
In '''''Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.''''', 544 U.S. 528 (2005), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] developed a more complex test for determining if a price-control regulation constitutes a "[[taking]]" requiring compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]].
Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] wrote the opinion for a nearly unanimous Court, with only Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] concurring separately. Justice O'Connor held that:
Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] wrote the opinion for a nearly unanimous Court, with only Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]] concurring separately. Justice O'Connor held that: