Difference between revisions of "Special public use doctrine"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (br) |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923) (to acquire and own land) | *Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923) (to acquire and own land) | ||
*Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (1923) (to acquire and own land) | *Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (1923) (to acquire and own land) | ||
| + | *Stephen t. Colbert, 241 U.S. 144 (1924) (to acquire and own land) | ||
A decision in the other direction was Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948). | A decision in the other direction was Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948). | ||
Revision as of 14:35, October 14, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court has invoked the special-public-interest doctrine to uphold statutes that, in the absence of overriding treaties, limit the right of noncitizens to exploit a State's natural resources:
- McCready v. Virginia, 94 U.S. 391 (1877)
- Patsone v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 138 (1914)
- Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S. 483 (1880) (to inherit real property)
- Blythe v. Hinckley, 180 U.S. 333 (1901) (to inherit real property)
- Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U.S. 197 (1923) (to acquire and own land)
- Porterfield v. Webb, 263 U.S. 225 (1923) (to acquire and own land)
- Webb v. O'Brien, 263 U.S. 313 (1923) (to acquire and own land)
- Frick v. Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (1923) (to acquire and own land)
- Stephen t. Colbert, 241 U.S. 144 (1924) (to acquire and own land)
A decision in the other direction was Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948).