Difference between revisions of "BedRoc Limited v. United States"
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | 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]]. | + | 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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 23:50, April 29, 2008
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.
External Links
- Case at FindLaw (registration may be required)