Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
m (DeRien moved page Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon to Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon: shorten) |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=December 11, 1922 | |date=December 11, 1922 | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
|facts=In 1921, Pennsylvania enacted the Kohler Act | |appealed_from=Pennsylvania Supreme Court | ||
|facts=* | |||
*Pennsylvania Coal Co. = "Penn" = owner of a parcel rich in sub-surface coal = a coal-mining company | |||
*In 1878, Penn deeded the surface rights to Mahon while retaining the right to mine sub-surface minerals | |||
*The deed stipulated that Mahon would accept the risks associated with Penn's coal mining activities | |||
*In spite of the risks spelled out in the deed, Mahon built a house on the land subject to coal-mining activities | |||
*In 1921, Pennsylvania enacted the Kohler Act (which prohibited coal mining that might threaten any residential structure above land) | |||
* | |||
* | |||
|procedural_history=* Mahon sued Penn seeking an injunction against Penn in accordance with the newly-passed Kohler Act | |||
* Mahon lost in the court of common pleas in Pennsylvania. | |||
* Mahon won in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania | |||
* | |||
|issues=Is the Kohler Act's prohibition on mining coal below residences a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/taking taking]? | |||
|holding=[[Oliver Holmes]] : A regulation that goes too far constitutes a ''taking'' & requires just compensation. | |||
The Kohler Act goes beyond the state's '''police power'''. | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|rule=[[Constitution_of_the_United_States#Takings_Clause]] | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/260us393 | |link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/260us393 | ||
| Line 31: | Line 49: | ||
|service=YouTube | |service=YouTube | ||
|id=568uCCi14lA | |id=568uCCi14lA | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=LUD24oJNoJw | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 23:57, April 23, 2024
| Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | 260 U.S. 393 |
| Date decided | December 11, 1922 |
| Appealed from | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Facts
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. = "Penn" = owner of a parcel rich in sub-surface coal = a coal-mining company
- In 1878, Penn deeded the surface rights to Mahon while retaining the right to mine sub-surface minerals
- The deed stipulated that Mahon would accept the risks associated with Penn's coal mining activities
- In spite of the risks spelled out in the deed, Mahon built a house on the land subject to coal-mining activities
- In 1921, Pennsylvania enacted the Kohler Act (which prohibited coal mining that might threaten any residential structure above land)
Procedural History
- Mahon sued Penn seeking an injunction against Penn in accordance with the newly-passed Kohler Act
- Mahon lost in the court of common pleas in Pennsylvania.
- Mahon won in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Issues
Is the Kohler Act's prohibition on mining coal below residences a taking?
Holding
Oliver Holmes : A regulation that goes too far constitutes a taking & requires just compensation.
The Kohler Act goes beyond the state's police power.Judgment
Reversed
Rule
Resources
