• Last updated on November 11, 2022

The Supreme Court first held that a regulation regarding land use may constitute a taking.

Justice Oliver Wendell HolmesHolmes, Oliver Wendell;Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon[Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon] wrote the opinion for the 8-1 majority. Holmes ruled that a Pennsylvania statute regulated land to such an extent that a coal company could not access the coal deposit for which it owned the mineral rights. The Supreme Court held that the regulation was a taking for which just compensation had not been offered. Justice Louis D. Brandeis dissented. Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis[case]Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis[Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis] (1987) seems to modify Pennsylvania Coal, but neither holding determined exactly when such a regulation became a taking, and the controversy continued.Takings clause;Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon[Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon]

Due process, procedural

Fifth Amendment

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York

Property rights

Takings clause

Categories: History Content