|
3 Cases Listed
Updated: May 27, 2005
Linda Lingle, Governor of the
State of Hawaii, and Mark J. Bennett, Attorney General of
the State of Hawaii v. Chevron USA, Inc., S. Ct. No. 04-163
Petition Filed: July 30, 2004
Cert. Granted: October 12, 2004
Lower Court Opinion: The Ninth Circuit's opinion is reported
at 363 F.3d 846. The District Court's opinion is reported
at 198 F.Supp.2d 1182.
Opinion Issued: May 23, 2005
Questions Presented:
1. Whether the Just Compensation Clause authorizes a court
to invalidate state economic legislation on its face and
enjoin enforcement of the law on the basis that the legislation
does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest,
without regard to whether the challenged law diminishes
the economic value or usefulness of any property.
2. Whether a court, in determining under the Just Compensation
Clause whether state economic legislation substantially
advances a legitimate state interest, should apply a deferential
standard of review equivalent to that traditionally applied
to economic legislation under the Due Process and Equal
Protection Clauses, or may instead substitute its judgment
for that of the legislature by determining de novo,
by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, whether the
legislation will be effective in achieving its goals.
Thomas R. Phillips, Chief Justice,
Nathan R. Hecht, Justice, Craig T. Enoch, Justice, Priscilla
R. Owens, Justice, James A. Baker, Justice, Justice, Deborah
G. Hankinson, Justice, Harriet O'Neill, Justice and Xavier
Rodriguez, Justice, Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation,
and Richard Tate, v. Washington Legal Foundation, William
R. Summers, and Michael J. Mazzone, S. Ct. No. 02-01
Petition Filed: June 26, 2002
**(Motion for expedited consideration denied)**
Lower Court Opinion: 270 F.3d 180 (5th Cir. 2001); 86 F. Supp.
2d 617 and 86 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Tex. 2000)
On March 31, 2003, cert. was granted, the decision reversed
and remanded to the 5th circuit for consideration in light
of Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether the Texas Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts
("IOLTA") program "takes" private property
within the meaning of the Just Compensation Clause of the
Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether a claimant who has suffered no economic loss
is nonetheless entitled to relief, including injunctive
or declaratory relief, under the Just Compensation Clause.
3. Whether the claims against the Chief Justice and Justices
of the Supreme Court of Texas are subject to dismissal on
grounds of official immunity.
McQueen
v. South Carolina Dept. of Health and Envt'l. Control,
S. Ct. 00-285
Petition Filed: Aug. 22, 2000
Lower Court Opinion: 530 S.E.2d 628 (S.C. 2000)
On June 29, 2001, the Supreme Court issued an order
stating: "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme
Court of South Carolina for further consideration in light
of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. ___ (2001).
Question Presented:
1. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), this Court held that
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution prescribes the following rule: "when
the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice
all economically beneficial uses in the name of
the common good, that is, to leave his property economically
idle, he has suffered a taking." Id. at 1019
(footnote omitted).
The question presented is whether an owner has suffered
a taking when he proves that a regulation deprives him of
all economically beneficial use of his property without
also proving that it frustrates his distinct or reasonable
investment-backed expectations.
Review by the Supreme Court was sought in this case.
The Supreme Court of the United States denied cert on November
3, 2003.
Back to Legal Resources
|
