Search for: "Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel"
Results 1 - 18
of 18
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jun 2019, 10:19 am
(Lucas v. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 6:48 am
” Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 1:25 pm
In Koontz v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 11:53 am
” The dissent explains that under the Court’s prior decision in Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:47 pm
That runs roughshod over Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:39 pm
One avenue, which 5 justices seemed to embrace in Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 11:33 am
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a "direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government," Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 2:52 pm
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a "direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government," Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 10:02 pm
Delta Air Lines Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (Friday); and June 25, 1998 – Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 4:54 pm
And then there’s his lone opinion in Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 11:06 am
" See Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 4:32 pm
We're not sure the Sixth Circuit needed to go through this analysis (although the opinion's discussion of the plurality opinions in Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 11:56 am
After all, in Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 9:12 am
Substantive due process -- Both the transparent targeting of BP and retroactivity might support an argument that the legislation is arbitrary and violates due process (essentially the takings argument, but absent the property hook, see Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Eastern Enterprises v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 11:39 pm
The case is EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. [read post]
6 Mar 2009, 12:44 pm
The Illinois Supreme Court held that the regulation was a tax, and not subject to takings analysis.The Mountain States Legal Foundation's brief argues the Court should review the case to resolve the confusion created by Eastern Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 1:17 pm
See Eastern Ent., Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jan 2007, 4:41 pm
Apfel. [read post]
