Difference between revisions of "Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 1: Line 1:
−
In '''''Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis''''', 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that that a regulation banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property does not require compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]] [[Takings Clause]].
+
In '''''Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis''''', 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that that a [[regulation]] banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property does not require compensation under the [[Fifth Amendment]] [[Takings Clause]].
 
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
[[category:Fifth Amendment]]
 
[[category:Fifth Amendment]]

Revision as of 04:27, September 5, 2011

In Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (1987), the U.S. Supreme Court held that that a regulation banning certain uses of a portion of an owner's property does not require compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.