keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
argued
november
decided
march
section
pennsylvania
bituminous
mine
subsidence
land
conservation
act
act
prohibits
coal
mining
causes
subsidence
damage
public
buildings
dwellings
cemeteries
implementing
regulations
issued
pennsylvania
department
environmental
resources
der
require
coal
beneath
structures
kept
place
provide
surface
support
extend
protection
water
courses
section
act
authorizes
der
revoke
mining
permit
removal
coal
causes
damage
structure
area
operator
within
six
months
repaired
damage
satisfied
claim
arising
therefrom
deposited
sum
repairs
reasonably
cost
security
petitioners
control
substantial
coal
reserves
property
filed
suit
federal
district
seeking
enjoin
der
enforcing
act
regulations
complaint
alleged
inter
alia
pennsylvania
recognizes
separate
support
estate
addition
surface
mineral
estates
land
approximately
coal
petitioners
mine
severed
surface
estates
petitioners
typically
acquired
waivers
damages
claims
might
result
coal
removal
implemented
rule
violate
fifth
amendment
takings
clause
violates
article
contracts
clause
petitioners
yet
alleged
proved
specific
injury
caused
enforcement
regulations
question
district
whether
mere
enactment
regulations
constituted
taking
district
granted
der
motion
summary
judgment
facial
challenge
appeals
affirmed
holding
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
control
act
effect
taking
impairment
private
contracts
effectuated
act
justified
public
interests
protected
act
held
petitioners
satisfied
burden
showing
regulations
rule
constitute
taking
private
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
pennsylvania
coal
control
case
two
factors
considered
relevant
commonwealth
interest
enacting
law
extent
alleged
taking
support
act
constitutionality
pp
unlike
statute
considered
pennsylvania
coal
act
intended
serve
genuine
substantial
legitimate
public
interests
health
environment
fiscal
integrity
area
minimizing
damage
surface
areas
none
indicia
statute
enacted
solely
benefit
private
parties
identified
pennsylvania
coal
present
petitioners
argument
remedies
unnecessary
satisfy
act
public
purposes
commonwealth
insurance
program
reimburses
repair
costs
persuasive
since
public
purpose
served
deterring
mine
operators
causing
damage
first
place
making
assume
financial
responsibility
thus
commonwealth
merely
exercised
police
power
prevent
activities
tantamount
public
nuisances
character
governmental
action
leans
heavily
finding
taking
pp
record
case
support
finding
similar
one
pennsylvania
coal
act
makes
impossible
petitioners
profitably
engage
business
undue
interference
expectations
case
involves
facial
constitutional
challenge
finding
necessary
establish
taking
however
petitioners
never
claimed
mining
operations
even
specific
mines
unprofitable
since
act
passed
evidence
mining
specific
location
affected
rule
unprofitable
fact
relevant
evidence
testimony
indicating
requires
petitioners
leave
million
tons
less
coal
place
petitioners
argument
commonwealth
effectively
appropriated
coal
since
useful
purpose
mined
fails
million
tons
constitute
separate
segment
property
taking
law
purposes
record
indicates
petitioners
underground
coal
profitably
mined
event
showing
reasonable
expectations
materially
affected
duty
petitioners
argument
act
constitutes
taking
entirely
destroys
value
unique
support
estate
also
fails
practical
matter
support
estate
value
insofar
used
exploit
another
estate
thus
support
estate
separate
segment
property
takings
law
purposes
since
constitutes
one
part
mine
operators
bundle
property
rights
petitioners
retain
right
mine
virtually
coal
mineral
estates
burden
act
places
support
estate
constitute
taking
moreover
since
evidence
percentage
petitioners
support
estates
either
aggregate
respect
individual
estate
affected
act
takings
clause
facial
challenge
fails
pp
section
impair
petitioners
contractual
agreements
violation
article
constitution
denying
petitioners
right
hold
surface
owners
contractual
waivers
liability
surface
damage
contracts
clause
read
literally
obliterate
valid
exercises
police
power
protect
public
health
welfare
commonwealth
significant
legitimate
public
interest
preventing
subsidence
damage
buildings
cemeteries
water
courses
determined
imposition
liability
coal
companies
necessary
protect
interest
determination
entitled
deference
commonwealth
party
contracts
question
thus
impairment
petitioners
right
enforce
damages
waivers
amply
justified
public
purposes
served
act
pp
stevens
delivered
opinion
brennan
white
marshall
blackmun
joined
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
powell
scalia
joined
post
rex
lee
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
benjamin
heineman
michael
nemeroff
carter
phillips
henry
mcc
ingram
thomas
reed
andrew
gordon
chief
deputy
attorney
general
pennsylvania
argued
cause
respondent
brief
leroy
zimmerman
attorney
general
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
legal
foundation
et
al
richard
mcglynn
national
coal
association
et
al
harold
quinn
pacific
legal
foundation
ronald
zumbrun
robert
best
lucinda
low
swartz
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
california
ex
rel
john
van
de
kamp
et
al
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
pro
se
richard
jacobs
gregory
taylor
theodora
berger
assistant
attorneys
general
richard
frank
craig
thompson
attorneys
general
respective
follows
john
steven
clark
arkansas
jim
smith
florida
corinne
watanabe
hawaii
linley
pearson
indiana
robert
stephan
kansas
william
guste
louisiana
stephen
sachs
maryland
francis
bellotti
massachusetts
james
tierney
maine
frank
kelley
michigan
hubert
humphrey
iii
minnesota
edwin
pittman
mississippi
william
webster
missouri
robert
spire
nebraska
stephen
merrill
new
hampshire
cary
edwards
new
jersey
robert
abrams
new
york
lacy
thornburg
north
carolina
michael
turpin
oklahoma
dave
frohnmayer
oregon
mark
meierhenry
south
dakota
michael
cody
tennessee
jeffrey
amestoy
vermont
kenneth
eikenberry
washington
bronson
la
follette
wisconsin
national
conference
state
legislatures
et
al
benna
ruth
solomon
joyce
holmes
benjamin
beate
bloch
robert
freilich
pennsylvania
state
grange
et
al
james
rochow
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
reviewed
constitutionality
pennsylvania
statute
admittedly
destroyed
previously
existing
rights
property
contract
writing
justice
holmes
explained
government
hardly
go
extent
values
incident
property
diminished
without
paying
every
change
general
law
long
recognized
values
enjoyed
implied
limitation
must
yield
police
power
obviously
implied
limitation
must
limits
contract
due
process
clauses
gone
one
fact
consideration
determining
limits
extent
diminution
reaches
certain
magnitude
cases
must
exercise
eminent
domain
compensation
sustain
act
question
depends
upon
particular
facts
ibid
years
later
address
different
set
particular
facts
involving
pennsylvania
legislature
conclusion
commonwealth
existing
mine
subsidence
legislation
failed
protect
public
interest
safety
land
conservation
preservation
affected
municipalities
tax
bases
land
development
commonwealth
based
detailed
findings
legislature
enacted
bituminous
mine
subsidence
land
conservation
act
subsidence
act
act
stat
tit
et
seq
purdon
supp
petitioners
contend
relying
heavily
decision
pennsylvania
coal
subsidence
act
certain
implementing
regulations
violate
takings
clause
act
violates
contracts
clause
federal
constitution
district
appeals
concluded
pennsylvania
coal
control
several
reasons
subsequent
cases
make
clear
neither
unconstitutional
face
agree
coal
mine
subsidence
lowering
strata
overlying
coal
mine
including
land
surface
caused
extraction
underground
coal
lowering
strata
devastating
effects
often
causes
substantial
damage
foundations
walls
structural
members
integrity
houses
buildings
subsidence
frequently
causes
sinkholes
troughs
land
make
land
difficult
impossible
develop
effect
farming
well
documented
many
subsided
areas
plowed
properly
prepared
subsidence
also
cause
loss
groundwater
surface
ponds
short
presents
type
environmental
concern
focus
much
federal
state
local
regulation
recent
decades
despite
name
may
suggest
neither
full
extraction
mining
methods
currently
used
western
pennsylvania
enables
miners
extract
subsurface
coal
considerable
amounts
need
left
ground
provide
access
support
ventilation
mines
additionally
mining
companies
long
required
various
pennsylvania
laws
regulations
legitimacy
challenged
leave
coal
certain
areas
public
safety
reasons
since
pennsylvania
placed
additional
set
restrictions
amount
coal
may
extracted
restrictions
designed
diminish
subsidence
subsidence
damage
vicinity
certain
structures
areas
pennsylvania
subsidence
act
authorizes
pennsylvania
department
environmental
resources
der
implement
enforce
comprehensive
program
prevent
minimize
subsidence
regulate
consequences
section
subsidence
act
stat
tit
purdon
supp
prohibits
mining
causes
subsidence
damage
three
categories
structures
place
april
public
buildings
noncommercial
buildings
generally
used
public
dwellings
used
human
habitation
cemeteries
since
der
applied
formula
generally
requires
coal
beneath
structures
protected
kept
place
means
providing
surface
support
section
subsidence
act
stat
tit
purdon
supp
authorizes
der
revoke
mining
permit
removal
coal
causes
damage
structure
area
protected
operator
within
six
months
either
repaired
damage
satisfied
claim
arising
therefrom
deposited
sum
equal
reasonable
cost
repair
der
security
ii
petitioners
filed
civil
rights
action
district
western
district
pennsylvania
seeking
enjoin
officials
der
enforcing
subsidence
act
implementing
regulations
petitioners
association
coal
mine
operators
four
corporations
engaged
either
directly
affiliates
underground
mining
bituminous
coal
western
pennsylvania
members
association
corporate
petitioners
lease
otherwise
control
substantial
coal
reserves
beneath
surface
property
affected
subsidence
act
defendants
action
respondents
secretary
der
chief
der
division
mine
subsidence
chief
der
section
mine
subsidence
regulation
complaint
alleges
pennsylvania
recognizes
three
separate
estates
land
mineral
estate
surface
estate
support
estate
beginning
well
years
ago
landowners
began
severing
title
underground
coal
right
surface
support
retaining
conveying
away
ownership
surface
estate
stipulated
approximately
coal
mined
petitioners
western
pennsylvania
severed
surface
period
acquiring
retaining
mineral
estate
petitioners
predecessors
typically
acquired
retained
certain
additional
rights
enable
extract
remove
coal
thus
acquired
right
deposit
wastes
provide
drainage
ventilation
erect
facilities
tipples
roads
railroads
surface
additionally
typically
acquired
waiver
claims
damages
might
result
removal
coal
portions
complaint
relevant
us
petitioners
alleged
subsidence
act
implemented
rule
subsidence
act
constitute
taking
private
property
without
compensation
violation
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
also
alleged
impairs
contractual
agreements
violation
article
constitution
parties
entered
stipulation
facts
pertaining
petitioners
facial
challenge
filed
summary
judgment
facial
challenge
district
granted
respondents
motion
rejecting
petitioners
takings
clause
claim
district
first
distinguished
pennsylvania
coal
primarily
ground
subsidence
act
served
valid
public
purposes
found
lacking
earlier
case
supp
district
found
restriction
use
petitioners
property
exercise
commonwealth
police
power
justified
pennsylvania
interest
health
safety
general
welfare
public
answer
petitioners
argument
subsidence
act
effectuated
taking
separate
recognized
interest
realty
support
estate
entirely
destroyed
district
concluded
pennsylvania
law
support
estate
consists
bundle
rights
including
affected
act
right
cause
damage
surface
may
constitute
valuable
strand
bundle
rights
possessed
owner
support
estate
considered
controlling
decision
andrus
allard
rejecting
petitioners
contracts
clause
claim
district
noted
contention
subsidence
act
der
regulations
impaired
contract
commonwealth
party
since
private
contractual
obligations
impaired
considered
appropriate
defer
legislature
determinations
concerning
public
purposes
served
legislation
found
adjustment
rights
contracting
parties
tailored
significant
legitimate
public
purposes
parties
request
district
certified
facial
challenge
appeal
appeals
affirmed
agreeing
pennsylvania
coal
control
subsidence
act
legitimate
means
protect
ing
environment
commonwealth
economic
future
appeals
analysis
subsidence
act
effect
petitioners
property
differed
somewhat
district
however
rejecting
argument
support
estate
entirely
destroyed
appeals
rely
fact
support
estate
constitutes
bundle
many
rights
rather
considered
support
estate
one
segment
larger
bundle
rights
invariably
includes
either
surface
estate
mineral
estate
judge
adams
explained
focus
upon
support
estate
separately
assessing
diminution
value
plaintiffs
property
caused
subsidence
act
therefore
serve
little
purpose
support
estate
properly
viewed
one
strand
plaintiff
bundle
property
rights
also
includes
mineral
estate
stated
andrus
destruction
one
strand
bundle
taking
aggregate
must
viewed
entirety
use
mine
operators
wish
put
support
estate
forbidden
however
plaintiffs
still
possess
valuable
mineral
rights
enable
profitably
mine
coal
subject
subsidence
act
requirement
prevent
subsidence
entire
bundle
property
rights
destroyed
iii
petitioners
assert
disposition
takings
claim
calls
straightforward
application
decision
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
although
obvious
similarities
cases
agree
appeals
district
similarities
far
less
significant
differences
pennsylvania
coal
control
case
pennsylvania
coal
pennsylvania
coal
company
served
notice
mahon
company
mining
operations
beneath
premises
soon
reach
point
cause
subsidence
surface
mahons
filed
bill
equity
seeking
enjoin
coal
company
removing
coal
cause
caving
collapse
subsidence
dwelling
bill
acknowledged
mahons
owned
surface
right
soil
lot
coal
company
reserved
right
remove
coal
without
liability
owner
surface
estate
nonetheless
mahons
asserted
pennsylvania
recently
enacted
kohler
act
stat
tit
et
seq
purdon
prohibited
mining
caused
subsidence
certain
structures
entitled
injunction
initially
entered
preliminary
injunction
pending
hearing
merits
chancellor
soon
dissolved
observing
plaintiffs
bill
contains
averment
base
implication
otherwise
finding
fact
interest
public
private
involved
defendant
proposal
mine
coal
except
private
interest
plaintiffs
prevention
private
injury
tr
record
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
company
promptly
appealed
asserting
impact
statute
severe
serious
shortage
domestic
fuel
threatened
motion
advance
argument
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
company
explained
ruled
anthracite
coal
likely
cause
surface
subsidence
mined
strikes
threatened
throughout
anthracite
coal
fields
argument
company
contended
kohler
act
bona
fide
exercise
police
power
reality
nothing
robbery
forms
law
purpose
protect
lives
safety
public
generally
merely
augment
property
rights
favored
see
quoting
loan
assn
topeka
wall
justice
brandeis
dissent
accepted
company
argument
opinion
justice
holmes
first
characteristically
decided
specific
case
hand
single
terse
paragraph
case
single
private
house
doubt
public
interest
even
every
purchase
sale
happens
within
commonwealth
existing
rights
may
modified
even
case
rideout
knox
mass
usually
ordinary
private
affairs
public
interest
warrant
much
kind
interference
source
damage
house
public
nuisance
even
similar
damage
inflicted
others
different
places
damage
common
public
wesson
washburn
iron
allen
extent
public
interest
shown
statute
limited
since
statute
ordinarily
apply
land
surface
owned
owner
coal
furthermore
justified
protection
personal
safety
provided
notice
indeed
foundation
bill
defendant
gave
timely
notice
intent
mine
house
hand
extent
taking
great
purports
abolish
recognized
pennsylvania
estate
land
valuable
estate
declared
contract
hitherto
binding
plaintiffs
called
upon
deal
plaintiffs
position
alone
think
clear
statute
disclose
public
interest
sufficient
warrant
extensive
destruction
defendant
constitutionally
protected
rights
holdings
assumptions
pennsylvania
coal
provide
obvious
necessary
reasons
distinguishing
pennsylvania
coal
case
us
today
two
factors
considered
relevant
become
integral
parts
takings
analysis
held
land
use
regulation
effect
taking
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interests
denies
owner
economically
viable
use
land
agins
tiburon
citations
omitted
see
also
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
application
tests
petitioners
challenge
demonstrates
satisfied
burden
showing
subsidence
act
constitutes
taking
first
unlike
kohler
act
character
governmental
action
involved
leans
heavily
finding
taking
commonwealth
pennsylvania
acted
arrest
perceives
significant
threat
common
welfare
second
record
case
support
finding
similar
one
made
pennsylvania
coal
subsidence
act
makes
impossible
petitioners
profitably
engage
business
undue
interference
expectations
public
purpose
unlike
kohler
act
passed
upon
pennsylvania
coal
subsidence
act
merely
involve
balancing
private
economic
interests
coal
companies
private
interests
surface
owners
pennsylvania
legislature
specifically
found
important
public
interests
served
enforcing
policy
designed
minimize
subsidence
certain
areas
section
subsidence
act
provides
act
shall
deemed
exercise
police
powers
commonwealth
protection
health
safety
general
welfare
people
commonwealth
providing
conservation
surface
land
areas
may
affected
mining
bituminous
coal
methods
open
pit
strip
mining
aid
protection
safety
public
enhance
value
lands
taxation
aid
preservation
surface
water
drainage
public
water
supplies
generally
improve
use
enjoyment
lands
maintain
primary
jurisdiction
surface
coal
mining
pennsylvania
stat
tit
purdon
supp
none
indicia
statute
enacted
solely
benefit
private
parties
identified
justice
holmes
opinion
present
first
justice
holmes
explained
kohler
act
private
benefit
statute
since
ordinarily
apply
land
surface
owned
owner
coal
subsidence
act
contrast
exception
current
surface
owner
may
waive
protection
act
der
consents
see
code
moreover
forced
reject
commonwealth
safety
justification
kohler
act
found
commonwealth
interest
safety
easily
accomplished
notice
requirement
landowners
subsidence
act
contrast
designed
accomplish
number
widely
varying
interests
reference
petitioners
suggested
alternative
methods
commonwealth
proceed
petitioners
argue
least
requires
coal
companies
repair
subsidence
damage
pay
damages
suffer
subsidence
damage
unnecessary
commonwealth
administers
insurance
program
adequately
reimburses
surface
owners
cost
repairing
property
argument
rests
mistaken
premise
statute
motivated
desire
protect
private
parties
fact
however
public
purpose
motivated
enactment
legislation
served
preventing
damage
occurring
first
place
words
statute
providing
conservation
surface
land
areas
stat
tit
purdon
supp
requirement
mine
operator
assume
financial
responsibility
repair
damaged
structures
deters
operator
causing
damage
commonwealth
main
goal
whereas
insurance
program
merely
reimburse
surface
owner
damage
occurs
thus
subsidence
act
differs
kohler
act
critical
dispositive
respects
regard
kohler
act
believed
commonwealth
acted
ensure
damage
private
landowners
homes
justice
holmes
stated
private
individuals
needed
support
structures
take
risk
acquiring
surface
rights
contrast
commonwealth
acting
protect
public
interest
health
environment
fiscal
integrity
area
private
individuals
erred
taking
risk
estop
commonwealth
exercising
police
power
abate
activity
akin
public
nuisance
subsidence
act
prime
example
circumstances
may
change
time
clothe
public
interest
times
matter
purely
private
concern
block
hirsh
pennsylvania
coal
recognized
nature
state
interest
regulation
critical
factor
determining
whether
taking
occurred
thus
whether
compensation
required
distinguished
case
case
decided
eight
years
earlier
plymouth
coal
pennsylvania
held
competent
legislature
require
pillar
coal
left
along
line
adjoining
property
pennsylvania
coal
justice
holmes
explained
unlike
kohler
act
statute
challenged
plymouth
coal
dealt
requirement
safety
employees
invited
mine
secured
average
reciprocity
advantage
recognized
justification
various
laws
many
cases
since
pennsylvania
coal
recognized
nature
state
action
critical
takings
analysis
mugler
kansas
example
kansas
distiller
built
brewery
legal
challenged
kansas
constitutional
amendment
prohibited
manufacture
sale
intoxicating
liquors
although
recognized
buildings
machinery
constituting
breweries
little
value
amendment
justice
harlan
explained
prohibition
simply
upon
use
property
purposes
declared
valid
legislation
injurious
health
morals
safety
community
sense
deemed
taking
appropriation
property
power
prohibiting
use
individuals
property
prejudicial
health
morals
safety
public
consistently
existence
safety
organized
society
burdened
condition
state
must
compensate
individual
owners
pecuniary
losses
may
sustain
reason
permitted
noxious
use
property
inflict
injury
upon
community
reject
petitioners
implicit
assertion
pennsylvania
coal
overruled
cases
focused
heavily
nature
state
interest
regulation
five
years
pennsylvania
coal
decision
justice
holmes
joined
unanimous
decision
miller
schoene
holding
takings
clause
require
state
virginia
compensate
owners
cedar
trees
value
trees
state
ordered
destroyed
trees
needed
destroyed
prevent
disease
spreading
nearby
apple
orchards
represented
far
valuable
resource
upholding
state
action
consider
necessary
weigh
nicety
question
whether
infected
cedars
constitute
nuisance
according
common
law
whether
may
declared
statute
rather
clear
state
exercise
police
power
prevent
impending
danger
justified
require
compensation
see
also
euclid
ambler
realty
omnia
commercial
subsequent
cases
reaffirm
important
role
nature
state
action
plays
takings
analysis
see
goldblatt
hempstead
consolidated
rock
products
los
angeles
cal
appeal
dism
explained
goldblatt
although
comparison
values
regulatory
action
relevant
means
conclusive
hesitance
find
taking
state
merely
restrains
uses
property
tantamount
public
nuisances
consistent
notion
reciprocity
advantage
justice
holmes
referred
pennsylvania
coal
system
government
one
state
primary
ways
preserving
public
weal
restricting
uses
individuals
make
property
us
burdened
somewhat
restrictions
turn
benefit
greatly
restrictions
placed
others
see
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
rehnquist
dissenting
cf
california
reduction
sanitary
reduction
works
restrictions
properly
treated
part
burden
common
citizenship
kimball
laundry
long
ago
recognized
property
country
held
implied
obligation
owner
use
shall
injurious
community
mugler
kansas
see
also
beer
massachusetts
takings
clause
transform
principle
one
requires
compensation
whenever
state
asserts
power
enforce
see
mugler
agins
tiburon
explained
determination
governmental
action
constitutes
taking
essence
determination
public
large
rather
single
owner
must
bear
burden
exercise
state
power
public
interest
recognized
question
necessarily
requires
weighing
private
public
interests
cases
discussed
demonstrate
public
interest
preventing
activities
similar
public
nuisances
substantial
one
many
instances
required
compensation
subsidence
act
unlike
kohler
act
plainly
seeks
interest
nonetheless
need
rest
decision
factor
alone
petitioners
also
failed
make
showing
diminution
value
sufficient
satisfy
test
set
forth
pennsylvania
coal
regulatory
takings
cases
diminution
value
expectations
second
factor
distinguishes
case
pennsylvania
coal
finding
case
kohler
act
made
mining
certain
coal
commercially
impracticable
case
contrast
petitioners
shown
deprivation
significant
enough
satisfy
heavy
burden
placed
upon
one
alleging
regulatory
taking
reason
takings
claim
must
fail
addressing
petitioners
claim
must
disregard
posture
case
comes
us
district
granted
summary
judgment
respondents
facial
challenge
subsidence
act
explained
ecause
plaintiffs
alleged
injury
due
enforcement
statute
yet
concrete
controversy
regarding
application
specific
provisions
regulations
thus
question
whether
mere
enactment
statutes
regulations
constitutes
taking
emphasis
added
next
phase
case
petitioners
presentation
evidence
actual
effects
subsidence
act
instead
proceeding
manner
however
parties
filed
joint
motion
asking
certify
facial
challenge
appeal
parties
explained
assessment
actual
impact
act
petitioners
operations
involve
complex
voluminous
proofs
neither
party
currently
position
present
app
stressed
appellate
reverse
district
facial
challenge
expenditures
adjudicating
challenge
wasted
based
considerations
district
certified
three
questions
relating
facial
challenge
posture
case
critical
recognized
important
distinction
claim
mere
enactment
statute
constitutes
taking
claim
particular
impact
government
action
specific
piece
property
requires
payment
compensation
point
illustrated
decision
hodel
virginia
surface
mining
reclamation
rejected
preenforcement
challenge
constitutionality
surface
mining
control
reclamation
act
concluded
district
mistaken
reliance
pennsylvania
coal
support
holding
two
statutory
provisions
unconstitutional
deprived
coal
mine
operators
use
land
explained
ignored
admonition
constitutionality
statutes
decided
except
actual
factual
setting
makes
decision
necessary
see
socialist
labor
party
gilligan
rescue
army
municipal
alabama
state
federation
labor
mcadory
adherence
rule
particularly
important
cases
raising
allegations
unconstitutional
taking
private
property
last
term
reaffirmed
generally
unable
develop
set
formula
determining
justice
fairness
require
economic
injuries
caused
public
action
compensated
government
rather
remain
disproportionately
concentrated
persons
rather
examined
taking
question
engaging
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
identified
several
factors
economic
impact
regulation
interference
reasonable
investment
backed
expectations
character
government
action
particular
significance
kaiser
aetna
citations
omitted
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
must
conducted
respect
specific
property
particular
estimates
economic
impact
ultimate
valuation
relevant
unique
circumstances
appellees
taking
claim
arose
context
facial
challenge
presented
concrete
controversy
concerning
either
application
act
particular
surface
mining
operations
effect
specific
parcels
land
thus
issue
properly
district
turn
whether
mere
enactment
surface
mining
act
constitutes
taking
see
agins
tiburon
test
applied
considering
facial
challenge
fairly
straightforward
statute
regulating
uses
made
property
effects
taking
denies
owner
economically
viable
use
land
agins
tiburon
supra
see
also
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
hill
made
especially
steep
petitioners
claimed
stage
act
makes
commercially
impracticable
continue
mining
bituminous
coal
interests
western
pennsylvania
indeed
petitioners
even
pointed
single
mine
longer
mined
profit
evidence
available
effect
subsidence
act
petitioners
mining
operations
comes
petitioners
answers
respondents
interrogatories
petitioners
described
effect
subsidence
act
mines
various
companies
operate
claimed
required
leave
bit
less
million
tons
coal
place
support
areas
total
coal
mines
amounts
billion
tons
see
app
thus
requires
leave
less
coal
place
indicated
nowhere
near
underground
coal
extractable
even
aside
subsidence
act
categories
coal
must
left
purposes
purposes
necessarily
distinct
sets
information
record
much
coal
actually
left
ground
solely
know
however
petitioners
never
claimed
mining
operations
even
specific
mines
unprofitable
since
subsidence
act
passed
evidence
mining
specific
location
affected
rule
unprofitable
instead
petitioners
sought
narrowly
define
certain
segments
property
assert
defined
subsidence
act
denies
economically
viable
use
advance
two
alternative
ways
carving
property
order
reach
conclusion
first
focus
specific
tons
coal
must
leave
ground
subsidence
act
argue
commonwealth
effectively
appropriated
coal
since
useful
purpose
mined
second
contend
commonwealth
taken
separate
legal
interest
property
support
estate
test
regulatory
taking
requires
us
compare
value
taken
property
value
remains
property
one
critical
questions
determining
define
unit
property
whose
value
furnish
denominator
fraction
michelman
property
utility
fairness
comments
ethical
foundations
compensation
law
harv
rev
penn
central
explained
taking
jurisprudence
divide
single
parcel
discrete
segments
attempt
determine
whether
rights
particular
segment
entirely
abrogated
deciding
whether
particular
governmental
action
effected
taking
focuses
rather
character
action
nature
interference
rights
parcel
whole
city
tax
block
designated
landmark
site
coal
place
parties
stipulated
enforcement
der
rule
require
petitioners
leave
approximately
million
tons
coal
place
coal
mine
contend
pennsylvania
appropriated
public
purposes
described
subsidence
act
argument
fails
reason
explained
penn
central
andrus
million
tons
coal
constitute
separate
segment
property
takings
law
purposes
many
zoning
ordinances
place
limits
property
owner
right
make
profitable
use
segments
property
requirement
building
occupy
specified
percentage
lot
located
characterized
taking
vacant
area
readily
requirement
coal
pillars
left
place
similarly
petitioners
theory
one
always
argue
setback
ordinance
requiring
structure
built
within
certain
distance
property
line
constitutes
taking
footage
represents
distinct
segment
property
takings
law
purposes
cf
gorieb
fox
upholding
validity
setback
ordinance
sutherland
basis
treating
less
petitioners
coal
separate
parcel
property
consider
justice
holmes
statement
kohler
act
made
mining
certain
coal
commercially
impracticable
requiring
us
focus
individual
pillars
coal
must
left
place
statement
best
understood
referring
pennsylvania
coal
company
assertion
undertake
profitable
anthracite
coal
mining
light
kohler
act
strong
assertions
record
support
conclusion
example
coal
company
claimed
one
company
unable
operate
six
large
collieries
city
scranton
employing
five
thousand
men
motion
advance
argument
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
judge
adams
explained
first
blush
language
seems
suggest
found
taking
matter
little
defendants
coal
rendered
unmineable
certain
coal
longer
accessible
taking
coal
however
one
reads
sentence
context
becomes
clear
concern
whether
defendants
right
mine
coal
exercised
profit
emphasis
added
thus
holding
mahon
must
assumed
based
understanding
kohler
act
rendered
business
mining
coal
unprofitable
support
estate
pennsylvania
property
law
apparently
unique
regarding
support
estate
separate
interest
land
conveyed
apart
either
mineral
estate
surface
estate
petitioners
therefore
argue
even
comparable
legislation
another
state
constitute
taking
subsidence
act
consequence
entirely
destroys
value
unique
support
estate
clear
however
takings
jurisprudence
forecloses
reliance
legalistic
distinctions
within
bundle
property
rights
example
penn
central
rejected
argument
air
rights
terminal
constituted
separate
segment
property
takings
clause
purposes
likewise
andrus
allard
viewed
right
sell
property
one
element
owner
property
interest
neither
case
result
turn
whether
state
law
allowed
separate
sale
segment
property
appeals
familiar
pennsylvania
law
concluded
practical
matter
support
estate
always
owned
either
owner
surface
owner
minerals
stated
support
estate
consists
right
remove
strata
coal
earth
undergird
surface
leave
layers
intact
support
surface
prevent
subsidence
two
uses
depending
upon
purposes
owner
support
estate
one
use
must
chosen
owner
mine
operator
support
estate
used
exploit
mineral
estate
right
support
held
surface
owner
use
support
surface
prevent
subsidence
thus
although
pennsylvania
law
recognize
support
estate
separate
property
interest
used
profitably
one
also
possess
either
mineral
estate
surface
estate
see
montgomery
development
right
subjacent
support
third
estate
pennsylvania
temple
even
accept
petitioners
invitation
view
support
estate
distinct
segment
property
takings
purposes
satisfied
heavy
burden
sustaining
facial
challenge
act
petitioners
acquired
retained
support
estate
great
deal
land
part
protected
subsidence
act
course
deals
subsidence
immediate
vicinity
certain
structures
bodies
water
cemeteries
see
supra
record
devoid
evidence
percentage
purchased
support
estates
either
aggregate
respect
individual
estate
affected
act
circumstances
petitioners
facial
attack
takings
clause
must
surely
fail
iv
addition
challenge
takings
clause
petitioners
assert
subsidence
act
violates
contracts
clause
allowing
hold
surface
owners
contractual
waiver
liability
surface
damage
agree
appeals
district
commonwealth
strong
public
interests
legislation
adequate
justify
impact
statute
petitioners
contractual
agreements
prior
ratification
fourteenth
amendment
article
provided
primary
constitutional
check
state
legislative
power
first
sentence
section
provides
state
shall
enter
treaty
alliance
confederation
grant
letters
marque
reprisal
coin
money
emit
bills
credit
make
thing
gold
silver
coin
tender
payment
debts
pass
bill
attainder
ex
post
facto
law
law
impairing
obligation
contracts
grant
title
nobility
art
justice
stewart
explained
accepted
commonplace
contract
clause
operate
obliterate
police
power
settled
law
interdiction
statutes
impairing
obligation
contracts
prevent
state
exercising
powers
vested
promotion
common
weal
necessary
general
good
public
though
contracts
previously
entered
individuals
may
thereby
affected
power
various
ramifications
known
police
power
exercise
sovereign
right
government
protect
lives
health
morals
comfort
general
welfare
people
paramount
rights
contracts
individuals
manigault
springs
justice
holmes
succinctly
put
matter
opinion
hudson
water
mccarter
one
whose
rights
subject
state
restriction
remove
power
state
making
contract
contract
carry
infirmity
subject
matter
allied
structural
steel
spannaus
record
indicates
since
petitioners
conducted
mining
operations
approximately
structures
protected
subsidence
act
clear
whether
number
includes
cemeteries
water
courses
mining
conducted
event
petitioners
position
contracted
previous
owners
property
generations
ago
constitutionally
protected
legal
right
conduct
mining
operations
way
make
shambles
buildings
cemeteries
discussed
commonwealth
strong
public
interest
preventing
type
harm
environmental
effect
transcends
private
agreement
contracting
parties
course
finding
significant
legitimate
public
purpose
enough
justify
impairment
contractual
obligations
must
also
satisfy
legislature
adjustment
rights
responsibilities
contracting
parties
based
upon
reasonable
conditions
character
appropriate
public
purpose
justifying
legislation
adoption
energy
reserves
group
kansas
power
light
quoting
trust
new
jersey
repeatedly
held
unless
state
contracting
party
courts
properly
defer
legislative
judgment
necessity
reasonableness
particular
measure
energy
reserves
group
quoting
trust
explained
fully
subsidence
act
plainly
survives
scrutiny
standards
evaluating
impairments
private
contracts
commonwealth
determined
order
deter
mining
practices
severe
effects
surface
enough
set
guidelines
impose
restrictions
imposition
liability
necessary
requiring
coal
companies
either
repair
damage
give
surface
owner
funds
repair
damage
commonwealth
accomplishes
deterrence
restoration
environment
previous
condition
refuse
commonwealth
determinations
appropriate
ways
dealing
problem
conclude
therefore
impairment
petitioners
right
enforce
damages
waivers
amply
justified
public
purposes
served
subsidence
act
judgment
appeals
affirmed
footnotes
wherever
subsidence
effects
extend
damage
occur
buildings
roads
pipelines
cables
streams
water
impoundments
wells
aquifers
buildings
cracked
tilted
roads
lowered
cracked
streams
water
impoundments
aquifers
drained
underground
excavations
oil
gas
wells
severed
causing
contents
migrate
underground
mines
aquifers
even
residential
basements
sewage
lines
gas
lines
water
lines
severed
telephone
electric
cables
blazey
strain
supra
indeed
congress
passed
federal
surface
mining
control
reclamation
act
stat
et
includes
regulation
subsidence
caused
underground
coal
mining
see
two
full
extraction
coal
mining
methods
use
western
pennsylvania
room
pillar
method
longwall
method
app
example
pennsylvania
law
requires
coal
beneath
adjacent
certain
large
surface
bodies
water
left
place
stat
tit
et
seq
purdon
section
provides
protection
surface
structures
damage
collapse
subsidence
order
guard
health
safety
general
welfare
public
owner
operator
lessor
lessee
general
manager
superintendent
person
charge
supervision
bituminous
coal
mine
shall
mine
bituminous
coal
cause
damage
result
collapse
subsidence
following
surface
structures
place
april
overlying
proximity
mine
public
building
noncommercial
structure
customarily
used
public
including
limited
churches
schools
hospitals
municipal
utilities
municipal
public
service
operations
dwelling
used
human
habitation
cemetery
public
burial
ground
unless
current
owner
structure
consents
resulting
damage
fully
repaired
compensated
public
buildings
buildings
customarily
used
public
april
including
churches
schools
hospitals
courthouses
government
offices
perennial
streams
impoundments
water
storage
volume
acre
feet
aquifers
serve
significant
source
water
supply
public
water
system
coal
refuse
disposa
areas
code
regulations
define
zone
rule
applies
support
area
shall
rectangular
shape
determined
projecting
degree
angle
draw
surface
coal
seam
beginning
feet
side
structure
structure
surface
slope
greater
support
area
downslope
side
structure
shall
extended
additional
distance
determined
multiplying
depth
overburden
percentage
surface
slope
although
subsidence
eventually
occurs
every
underground
mine
extent
timing
subsidence
depends
upon
number
factors
including
depth
mining
geology
overlying
strata
topography
surface
method
coal
removal
der
believes
support
provided
rule
last
almost
cases
life
structure
protected
since
petitioners
mined
approximately
structures
areas
protected
subsidence
damage
claims
respect
stipulations
counsel
app
petitioners
also
challenged
various
portions
subsidence
act
see
supp
pursued
claims
shall
private
property
taken
public
use
without
compensation
amdt
restriction
applied
fourteenth
amendment
see
chicago
chicago
urgency
case
treated
evidenced
fact
issued
decision
less
month
oral
argument
little
year
test
case
commenced
case
treated
one
general
validity
act
discussed
attorney
general
state
city
scranton
representatives
extensive
interests
allowed
take
part
argument
submitted
contentions
seems
therefore
duty
go
farther
statement
opinion
order
may
known
suits
brought
vain
makes
right
mine
coal
valuable
exercised
profit
make
commercially
impracticable
mine
certain
coal
nearly
effect
constitutional
purposes
appropriating
destroying
think
warranted
assuming
statute
assumption
unreasonable
view
fact
kohler
act
may
read
prohibit
mining
causes
subsidence
subsidence
results
damage
surface
structures
record
case
indicates
subsidence
almost
always
occur
eventually
see
supra
legislature
also
set
forth
rather
detailed
findings
dangers
subsidence
need
legislation
see
stat
tit
purdon
supp
disposed
displace
considered
judgment
appeals
issue
whose
resolution
contingent
upon
analysis
state
law
runyon
mccrary
suggest
courts
license
judge
effectiveness
legislation
post
courts
undertake
least
restrictive
alternative
analysis
deciding
whether
state
regulatory
scheme
designed
remedy
public
harm
instead
intended
provide
private
benefits
land
use
regulation
may
somewhat
overinclusive
underinclusive
course
justification
rejecting
see
euclid
ambler
realty
hand
pennsylvania
coal
instructs
courts
examine
operative
provisions
statute
stated
purpose
assessing
true
nature
pennsylvania
coal
inquiry
led
reject
pennsylvania
legislature
stated
purpose
statute
extent
public
interest
shown
statute
limited
case
appeals
district
conducted
type
inquiry
pennsylvania
coal
conducted
determined
details
statute
call
stated
public
purposes
question
dissent
justice
brandeis
argued
state
absolute
right
prohibit
land
use
amounts
public
nuisance
justice
holmes
opinion
contest
proposition
instead
took
issue
justice
brandeis
conclusion
kohler
act
represented
prohibition
course
type
taking
alleged
also
often
critical
factor
well
settled
taking
may
readily
found
interference
property
characterized
physical
invasion
government
see
causby
interference
arises
public
program
adjusting
benefits
burdens
economic
life
promote
common
good
penn
central
tranportation
new
york
city
almost
invariably
found
permanent
physical
occupation
property
constitutes
taking
see
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
repeatedly
upheld
regulations
destroy
adversely
affect
real
property
interests
see
connolly
pension
benefit
guaranty
corporation
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
eastlake
forest
city
enterprises
goldblatt
hempstead
euclid
ambler
realty
gorieb
fox
welch
swasey
case
course
involves
land
use
regulation
physical
appropriation
petitioners
property
see
also
agins
tiburon
question
whether
taking
occurred
necessarily
requires
weighing
private
public
interests
webb
fabulous
pharmacies
beckwith
police
power
justification
offered
deprivation
special
status
type
state
action
also
understood
simple
theory
since
individual
right
use
property
create
nuisance
otherwise
harm
others
state
taken
anything
asserts
power
enjoin
activity
cf
sax
takings
private
property
public
rights
yale
michelman
property
utility
fairness
comments
ethical
foundations
compensation
law
harv
rev
however
current
chief
justice
explained
nuisance
exception
taking
guarantee
coterminous
police
power
penn
central
transportation
rehnquist
dissenting
certainly
case
light
recent
decisions
holding
scope
public
use
requirement
takings
clause
coterminous
scope
sovereign
police
powers
see
ruckelshaus
monsanto
quoting
hawaii
housing
authority
midkiff
see
generally
epstein
takings
takings
clause
never
read
require
courts
calculate
whether
specific
individual
suffered
burdens
generic
rule
excess
benefits
received
every
individual
gets
full
dollar
return
benefits
taxes
pays
yet
one
suggests
individual
right
compensation
difference
taxes
paid
dollar
value
benefits
received
courts
consistently
held
state
need
provide
compensation
diminishes
destroys
value
property
stopping
illegal
activity
abating
public
nuisance
see
nassr
commonwealth
mass
hazardous
waste
operation
kuban
mcgimsey
brothel
macleod
takoma
park
md
unsafe
building
eno
burlington
fire
health
hazard
pompano
horse
club
state
ex
rel
bryan
gambling
facility
people
ex
rel
thrasher
smith
bawdyhouse
hard
imagine
different
rule
consistent
maxim
sic
utere
tuo
ut
alienum
non
laedas
use
property
manner
injure
another
see
generally
empire
state
insurance
chafetz
professor
epstein
recently
commented
issue
compensation
arise
question
justification
disposed
typical
nuisance
prevention
case
question
resolved
claimant
epstein
supra
certified
questions
asked
whether
subsidence
act
various
regulations
violate
rule
mahon
decision
constitute
per
se
takings
violate
article
constitution
app
percentage
total
must
left
place
every
mine
wide
variation
extent
surface
development
different
areas
mines
identified
record
less
coal
must
remain
place
others
less
must
left
place
percentages
see
app
see
also
sax
takings
police
power
yale
rose
mahon
reconstructed
takings
issue
still
muddle
cal
rev
course
company
also
argued
subsidence
act
made
commercially
impracticable
mine
coal
left
place
although
constructed
pillars
support
place
coal
cost
artificial
pillars
far
exceeded
value
coal
see
brief
plaintiff
error
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
pp
suggest
state
may
physically
appropriate
relatively
small
amounts
private
property
use
without
paying
compensation
question
whether
taking
coal
physically
appropriated
regulatory
program
places
burden
use
small
fraction
property
subjected
regulation
see
generally
supra
see
charnetski
miners
mills
coal
mining
penman
jones
captline
county
allegheny
commw
cert
denied
see
generally
montgomery
development
right
subjacent
support
third
estate
pennsylvania
temple
another
unanswered
question
level
diminution
involves
district
observation
support
estate
carries
far
right
cause
subsidence
damage
without
liability
see
record
value
rights
thus
impossible
say
whether
regulation
subsidence
damage
certain
structures
imposition
liability
damage
certain
structures
denies
petitioners
economically
viable
use
support
estate
even
viewed
distinct
segment
property
made
part
constitution
remedy
particular
social
evil
state
legislative
practice
enacting
laws
relieve
individuals
obligations
certain
contracts
thus
intended
prohibit
adopting
policy
repudiation
debts
destruction
contracts
denial
means
enforce
home
building
loan
assn
blaisdell
allied
structural
steel
spannaus
brennan
dissenting
mentioned
know
percentage
petitioners
acquired
support
estate
fact
restricted
subsidence
act
see
supra
moreover
basis
conclude
substantial
part
support
estate
waiver
liability
see
inquiries
essential
determine
severity
impairment
turn
affects
level
scrutiny
legislation
affected
energy
reserves
group
kansas
power
light
dearths
record
might
critical
cases
essential
discussion
subsidence
act
withstands
scrutiny
even
assumed
constitutes
total
impairment
waivers
obtained
years
ago
part
support
estate
obtained
retained
incident
acquisition
retention
right
mine
large
quantities
underground
coal
question
enforcement
waiver
original
covenantor
presented
rather
petitioners
claim
right
enforce
waivers
subsequent
owners
surface
claim
apparently
supported
pennsylvania
precedent
holding
waivers
run
land
see
kormuth
steel
scranton
phillips
pennsylvania
courts
might
may
future
valid
basis
refusing
enforce
perpetual
covenants
subsequent
owners
surface
rights
necessarily
sufficient
reason
concluding
legislative
impairment
contracts
permissible
see
tidal
oil
flanagan
central
land
laidley
distinguishing
legislative
judicial
action
petitioners
raise
issue
district
appeals
rejected
attempt
argue
appeal
subsidence
act
also
affects
contracts
commonwealth
party
see
chief
justice
rehnquist
justice
powell
justice
justice
scalia
join
dissenting
years
ago
determined
constitutionality
pennsylvania
kohler
act
affected
property
interests
coal
mine
operators
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
bituminous
mine
subsidence
land
conservation
act
approved
today
effects
interference
interests
strikingly
similar
manner
finds
least
two
reasons
case
different
first
told
character
governmental
action
involved
leans
heavily
finding
taking
ante
second
concludes
subsidence
act
neither
makes
impossible
petitioners
profitably
engage
business
involves
undue
interference
petitioners
expectations
ibid
neither
conclusions
persuades
case
different
believe
subsidence
act
works
taking
petitioners
property
interests
therefore
dissent
apparent
recognition
obstacles
presented
pennsylvania
coal
decision
reaches
attempts
undermine
authority
justice
holmes
opinion
validity
kohler
act
labeling
uncharacteristically
advisory
ante
readily
dismiss
precedential
value
opinion
sure
language
case
suggesting
decided
simply
addressing
particular
application
kohler
act
issue
case
see
pennsylvania
coal
supra
called
upon
deal
plaintiffs
position
alone
think
clear
statute
disclose
public
interest
sufficient
warrant
extensive
destruction
defendant
constitutionally
protected
rights
however
found
validity
act
properly
drawn
question
case
treated
one
general
validity
kohler
act
discussed
ibid
coal
company
clearly
interest
obtaining
determination
kohler
act
unenforceable
worked
taking
without
providing
compensation
reasons
find
opinion
pennsylvania
coal
advisory
respect
implication
contrary
particularly
disturbing
context
holding
pennsylvania
coal
today
discounted
years
foundation
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
see
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
hagman
juergensmeyer
urban
planning
land
development
control
law
ed
pennsylvania
coal
monumental
decision
remains
vital
element
contemporary
taking
law
example
frequently
relied
admonition
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
pennsylvania
coal
supra
see
macdonald
sommer
frates
yolo
county
ruckelshaus
monsanto
pruneyard
shopping
center
robins
goldblatt
hempstead
central
eureka
mining
thus
even
willing
assume
opinion
pennsylvania
coal
standing
alone
reasonably
subject
interpretation
renders
half
discussion
advisory
doubt
repeated
reliance
opinion
establishes
cornerstone
jurisprudence
fifth
amendment
compensation
clause
accordingly
approach
case
greater
deference
language
well
holding
pennsylvania
coal
admittedly
questions
arising
compensation
clause
rest
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
must
decided
facts
circumstances
case
see
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
supra
central
eureka
mining
supra
examination
relevant
factors
presented
convinces
differences
pennsylvania
coal
verge
trivial
ii
first
determines
case
different
pennsylvania
coal
commonwealth
pennsylvania
acted
arrest
perceives
significant
threat
common
welfare
ante
view
reliance
factor
represents
misreading
pennsylvania
coal
misunderstanding
precedents
opines
decision
pennsylvania
coal
rested
fact
kohler
act
enacted
solely
benefit
private
parties
ante
served
private
interests
ante
review
kohler
act
shows
statements
incorrect
pennsylvania
legislature
passed
statute
remedial
legislation
designed
cure
existing
evils
abuses
mahon
pennsylvania
coal
quoting
act
public
evils
abuses
identified
preamble
wrecked
dangerous
streets
highways
collapsed
public
buildings
churches
schools
factories
streets
private
dwellings
broken
gas
water
sewer
systems
loss
human
life
pennsylvania
recognized
concerns
create
emergency
properly
warranting
exercise
police
power
doubt
kohler
act
intended
serve
public
interests
though
several
aspects
kohler
act
limited
protection
interests
see
pennsylvania
coal
ignore
public
interests
served
act
considering
protection
single
private
house
owned
mahons
noted
doubt
public
interest
even
emphasis
added
recognized
act
affects
mining
coal
streets
cities
places
right
mine
coal
reserved
see
also
assume
statute
passed
upon
conviction
exigency
existed
warrant
assume
exigency
exists
warrant
exercise
eminent
domain
strong
public
interest
stability
streets
cities
however
insufficient
warrant
achieving
desire
shorter
cut
constitutional
way
paying
change
ibid
thus
made
clear
mere
existence
public
purpose
insufficient
release
government
compensation
requirement
protection
private
property
fifth
amendment
presupposes
wanted
public
use
provides
shall
taken
use
without
compensation
subsidence
act
rests
similar
public
purposes
purposes
clearly
stated
legislature
aid
protection
safety
public
enhance
value
surface
area
lands
taxation
aid
preservation
surface
water
drainage
public
water
supplies
generally
improve
use
enjoyment
lands
stat
title
purdon
supp
act
declaration
policy
mine
subsidence
seriously
impeded
land
development
caused
clear
present
danger
health
safety
welfare
people
pennsylvania
erodes
tax
base
affected
municipalities
legislature
determined
prevention
subsidence
protect
surface
structures
advance
economic
future
pennsylvania
ensure
safety
welfare
commonwealth
residents
ibid
thus
clear
severely
understated
similarity
purpose
subsidence
act
kohler
act
public
purposes
case
sufficient
distinguish
pennsylvania
coal
similarity
public
purpose
present
act
pennsylvania
coal
resolve
question
whether
taking
occurred
existence
public
purpose
merely
necessary
prerequisite
government
exercise
taking
power
see
hawaii
housing
authority
midkiff
berman
parker
nature
purposes
may
relevant
recognized
taking
occur
government
exercises
unquestioned
authority
prevent
property
owner
using
property
injure
others
without
compensate
value
forbidden
use
see
goldblatt
hempstead
hadacheck
sebastian
mugler
kansas
see
generally
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
rehnquist
dissenting
today
indicates
nuisance
exception
alone
might
support
conclusion
taking
occurred
despite
implication
contrary
see
ante
legitimacy
purpose
question
federal
rather
state
law
subject
independent
scrutiny
statute
type
regulation
precedents
held
within
nuisance
exception
takings
analysis
ease
moves
recognition
public
interests
assertion
activity
regulated
akin
public
nuisance
suggests
exception
far
wider
recognized
previous
cases
nuisance
exception
taking
guarantee
however
coterminous
police
power
penn
central
transportation
supra
rehnquist
dissenting
narrow
exception
allowing
government
prevent
misuse
illegal
use
curtin
benson
intended
allow
prevention
legal
essential
use
attribute
ownership
ibid
narrow
nature
exception
compelled
concerns
underlying
fifth
amendment
though
recognizes
ante
fifth
amendment
prevent
actions
secure
reciprocity
advantage
pennsylvania
coal
supra
designed
prevent
public
loading
upon
one
individual
share
burdens
government
says
surrenders
public
something
different
exacted
members
public
full
equivalent
shall
returned
monongahela
navigation
see
also
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
supra
armstrong
broad
exception
operation
compensation
clause
based
exercise
multifaceted
health
welfare
safety
regulations
surely
allow
government
much
greater
authority
recognized
impose
societal
burdens
individual
landowners
nearly
every
action
government
takes
intended
secure
public
extra
measure
health
safety
welfare
thus
cases
applying
nuisance
rationale
involved
least
two
narrowing
principles
first
nuisance
regulations
exempted
fifth
amendment
rested
discrete
narrow
purposes
see
goldblatt
hempstead
supra
hadacheck
sebastian
supra
mugler
kansas
supra
subsidence
act
however
much
nuisance
statute
central
purposes
act
though
including
public
safety
reflect
concern
preservation
buildings
economic
development
maintenance
property
values
sustain
commonwealth
tax
base
hesitate
allow
regulation
based
essentially
economic
concerns
insulated
dictates
fifth
amendment
labeling
nuisance
regulation
second
significantly
cases
never
applied
nuisance
exception
allow
complete
extinction
value
parcel
property
though
nuisance
regulations
sustained
despite
substantial
reduction
value
accepted
proposition
state
may
completely
extinguish
property
interest
prohibit
use
without
providing
compensation
thus
mugler
kansas
supra
prohibition
manufacture
sale
intoxicating
liquors
made
distiller
brewery
little
value
completely
extinguish
value
building
similarly
miller
schoene
individual
forced
cut
cedar
trees
nevertheless
able
use
felled
trees
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
supra
restriction
surface
mining
upheld
goldblatt
hempstead
supra
may
prohibited
beneficial
use
property
reduce
value
lot
question
none
cases
regulation
destroy
essential
uses
private
property
curtin
benson
supra
petitioners
interests
particular
coal
deposits
completely
destroyed
requiring
defined
seams
coal
remain
ground
see
ante
subsidence
act
extinguished
interest
one
might
want
acquire
property
right
coal
consists
right
mine
pennsylvania
coal
quoting
commonwealth
ex
rel
keator
clearview
coal
application
nuisance
exception
circumstances
allow
state
merely
forbid
one
particular
use
property
many
uses
extinguish
beneficial
use
petitioners
property
though
suggesting
purposes
alone
sufficient
uphold
act
avoids
reliance
nuisance
exception
finding
subsidence
act
impair
petitioners
expectations
ability
profitably
operate
businesses
conclusion
follows
mainly
broad
definition
relevant
mass
property
ante
allows
ascribe
subsidence
act
less
pernicious
effect
interests
property
owner
need
consider
effect
regulation
identifiable
segment
property
makes
important
admittedly
difficult
task
defining
relevant
parcel
see
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
rehnquist
dissenting
reasons
explained
believe
opinion
adequately
performs
task
iii
pennsylvania
coal
found
sufficient
kohler
act
rendered
commercially
impracticable
mine
certain
coal
ante
observes
language
best
understood
conclusion
certain
coal
mines
operated
profit
petitioners
stage
litigation
rested
claim
similar
proof
claimed
mining
operations
even
specific
mines
unprofitable
since
subsidence
act
passed
ante
parties
however
stipulated
purposes
facial
challenge
subsidence
act
requires
petitioners
leave
ground
million
tons
coal
without
compensation
therefor
petitioners
also
claim
act
extinguishes
purchased
interests
support
estates
allow
mine
coal
without
liability
subsidence
thus
asked
consider
whether
restrictions
constitute
taking
conclusion
restriction
particular
coal
work
taking
primarily
result
view
million
tons
coal
ground
constitute
separate
segment
property
takings
law
purposes
ante
conclusion
based
view
interests
insignificant
warrant
protection
fifth
amendment
beyond
cavil
government
appropriation
relatively
small
amounts
private
property
use
requires
compensation
ante
instead
refusal
recognize
coal
ground
separate
segment
property
takings
purposes
based
fact
alleged
taking
regulatory
rather
physical
intrusion
see
ante
facts
case
see
label
placed
government
action
relevant
consideration
impact
property
rights
decisions
establish
governmental
action
short
physical
invasion
may
constitute
taking
regulatory
action
might
result
complete
loss
government
entered
upon
surface
land
taken
exclusive
possession
causby
though
government
direct
benefit
may
vary
depending
upon
nature
action
question
evaluated
perspective
property
holder
loss
rather
government
gain
see
ibid
general
motors
boston
chamber
commerce
boston
observation
taking
may
readily
found
interference
property
characterized
physical
invasion
government
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
supra
intended
alter
perspective
merely
claimed
taking
regulation
instead
recognized
regulations
unlike
physical
invasions
typically
extinguish
full
bundle
rights
particular
piece
property
andrus
allard
example
found
crucial
prohibition
sale
avian
artifacts
destroyed
one
strand
bundle
property
rights
aggregate
must
viewed
entirety
characteristic
regulations
frequently
makes
unclear
breadth
impact
identifiable
segments
property
required
evaluate
effects
light
several
factors
enumerated
penn
central
transportation
economic
impact
regulation
claimant
extent
regulation
interfered
expectations
character
governmental
action
one
however
find
need
employ
analytical
tools
government
physically
taken
identifiable
segment
property
physical
appropriation
government
leaves
doubt
fact
deprived
owner
uses
land
similarly
need
analysis
government
regulation
extinguishes
whole
bundle
rights
identifiable
segment
property
effect
action
holder
property
indistinguishable
effect
physical
taking
thus
clear
decision
andrus
allard
supra
different
government
confiscated
avian
artifacts
view
different
result
also
follow
government
simply
prohibited
every
use
property
owner
still
deprive
interest
subject
matter
general
motors
supra
case
enforcement
subsidence
act
regulations
require
petitioners
leave
approximately
million
tons
coal
place
question
coal
identifiable
separable
property
interest
unlike
many
property
interests
bundle
rights
coal
sparse
practical
purposes
right
coal
consists
right
mine
pennsylvania
coal
page
quoting
commonwealth
ex
rel
keater
clearview
coal
relevant
perspective
property
owners
interest
destroyed
every
bit
much
government
proceeded
mine
coal
use
regulation
merely
inhibit
one
strand
bundle
cf
andrus
allard
supra
instead
destroys
completely
interest
segment
property
circumstances
think
unnecessary
consider
whether
petitioners
may
operate
individual
mines
overall
mining
operations
profitably
denied
use
million
tons
coal
hold
subsidence
act
works
taking
property
interests
petitioners
also
claim
subsidence
act
effects
taking
support
estate
pennsylvania
law
support
estate
surface
estate
mineral
estate
three
distinct
estates
land
held
fee
simple
separate
distinct
captline
county
allegheny
commw
cert
denied
refusing
consider
effect
subsidence
act
property
interest
alone
dismisses
feature
pennsylvania
property
law
simply
legalistic
distinctio
within
bundle
property
rights
ante
value
informs
us
merely
part
entire
bundle
rights
possessed
owner
either
coal
surface
ante
see
also
focus
upon
support
estate
separately
serve
little
purpose
view
support
estate
allows
conclude
destruction
merely
destruction
one
strand
petitioners
bundle
property
rights
significant
enough
overall
bundle
work
taking
contrary
approach
today
evaluated
takings
claims
reference
units
property
defined
state
law
ruckleshaus
monsanto
example
determined
certain
health
safety
environmental
data
cognizable
property
right
missouri
law
proceeded
evaluate
effects
governmental
action
property
right
reliance
state
law
necessitated
fact
roperty
interests
created
constitution
rather
created
dimensions
defined
existing
rules
understandings
stem
independent
source
state
law
webb
fabulous
pharmacies
beckwith
quoting
board
regents
roth
reality
decision
today
reject
necessary
reliance
state
law
rather
simply
rejects
support
estate
relevant
segment
property
evaluates
impact
subsidence
act
reference
broader
yet
undefined
segment
property
presumably
recognized
state
law
see
reason
refusing
evaluate
impact
subsidence
act
support
estate
alone
pennsylvania
clearly
defined
separate
estate
property
suggests
practical
significance
estate
limited
value
merely
part
bundle
rights
possessed
owner
either
coal
surface
ante
though
may
accurately
describe
usual
state
affairs
understand
mean
one
holding
support
estate
alone
find
worthless
surely
owners
mineral
surface
estates
willing
buyers
interest
suggest
owner
mineral
support
estates
finds
separate
interest
support
without
value
circumstances
estate
defined
state
law
severable
value
right
appropriate
consider
effect
regulation
particular
property
interest
held
owners
mineral
estate
support
estate
consists
right
remove
strata
coal
earth
undergird
surface
purchase
right
therefore
shifts
risk
subsidence
surface
owner
section
subsidence
act
making
coal
mine
operator
strictly
liable
damage
surface
structures
caused
subsidence
purports
place
risk
holder
mineral
estate
regardless
whether
holder
also
owns
support
estate
operation
provision
extinguishes
petitioners
interests
support
estates
making
worthless
purchased
separate
right
pennsylvania
law
like
restriction
mining
particular
coal
complete
interference
property
right
extinguishes
value
must
accompanied
compensation
iv
sum
hold
pennsylvania
bituminous
mine
subsidence
land
conservation
act
effects
taking
petitioners
property
without
providing
compensation
specifically
act
works
extinguish
petitioners
interest
least
million
tons
coal
requiring
coal
left
ground
destroys
purchased
support
estates
returning
financial
liability
subsidence
respectfully
dissent
decision
contrary
pennsylvania
decision
review
also
determined
case
called
consideration
constitutionality
act
mahon
pennsylvania
coal
coal
company
persisted
claim
pennsylvania
statute
took
property
without
compensation
see
brief
plaintiff
error
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
pp
brief
defendants
error
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
public
evils
abuses
illustrated
coverage
kohler
act
regulated
mining
public
building
structure
customarily
used
public
including
churches
schools
hospitals
theaters
hotels
railroad
stations
mahon
pennsylvania
coal
supra
protected
areas
also
included
streets
roads
bridges
public
dedicated
public
use
habitually
used
public
well
public
utility
structures
private
homes
workplaces
cemeteries
ibid
notes
particulars
subsidence
act
better
serve
public
purposes
kohler
act
ante
may
well
true
inquiry
legislative
purpose
intended
license
judge
effectiveness
legislation
considering
fifth
amendment
issues
presented
hawaii
land
reform
act
noted
act
like
may
successful
achieving
intended
goals
whether
fact
provisions
accomplish
objectives
question
constitutional
requirement
satisfied
state
legislature
rationally
believed
act
promote
objective
hawaii
housing
authority
midkiff
quoting
western
southern
life
insurance
state
bd
equalization
conversely
cases
never
found
sufficient
legislation
efficiently
achieves
desired
objectives
hold
compensation
required
fifth
amendment
unavailable
plymouth
coal
pennsylvania
go
far
though
case
upheld
statute
requiring
mine
operators
leave
certain
amounts
coal
mines
examination
opinion
plymouth
coal
reveals
statute
challenged
taking
compensation
due
instead
coal
company
complained
statutory
provisions
defining
width
required
pillars
coal
constitutionally
deficient
matter
procedural
due
process
admittedly
language
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
suggests
contrary
analysis
taking
jurisprudence
divide
single
parcel
discrete
segments
attempt
determine
whether
rights
particular
segment
entirely
abrogated
deciding
whether
particular
governmental
action
effected
taking
focuses
rather
character
action
nature
extent
interference
rights
parcel
whole
gave
guidance
one
distinguish
discrete
segment
single
parcel
clear
moreover
air
rights
issue
penn
central
entirely
eliminated
operation
new
york
city
landmark
preservation
law
noted
simply
maintained
record
appellants
prohibited
occupying
portion
airspace
terminal
indeed
rejected
claim
supremacy
clause
allowed
congress
dictate
effect
regulation
vary
depending
property
law
state
submitter
information
located
congress
state
property
law
manner
advocated
taking
clause
lost
vitality
ruckleshaus
monsanto
clear
pennsylvania
law
one
person
may
coal
another
surface
third
right
support
smith
glen
alden
coal
therefore
irrelevant
petitioners
presented
evidence
percentage
purchased
support
estates
either
aggregate
respect
individual
estate
affected
act
ante
doubt
act
extinguishes
support
estates
fails
provide
compensation
taking
act
violates
dictates
fifth
amendment
find
subsidence
act
unconstitutional
fifth
amendment
reach
contracts
clause
issue
addressed
ante