Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 478 U.S. 1035 (1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Interstate Com. Comm'n v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers, 478 U.S. 1035 (1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: A-1 Cigarette Vending, Inc. v. United States (uscfc, 2001-05-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" A-1 Cigarette Vending, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348-51 , 106 S.Ct. 2561 , 91 L.Ed.2d 285 , reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1035 , 107 S.Ct. 22 , 92 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986) (requiring final agency application of regulatory restrictions before a taking will have occurred).
cited Cited "see" Hills Development v. Bernards Tp.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
Sabato, supra ; see MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo et al., 477 U.S. 340, 352-53 , 106 S.Ct. 2561 , 91 L.Ed. 2d 285 , reh'g den. 478 U.S. 1035 , 107 S.Ct. 22 , 92 L.Ed. 2d 773 (1986).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lakewood Associates v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. at 127 , 106 S.Ct. 455 ; accord Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796, 801 (Fed.Cir.1993); see also MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. County of Yolo, 477 U.S. 340, 348 , 106 S.Ct. 2561 , 91 L.Ed.2d 285 (“It follows from the nature of a regulatory takings claim that an essential prerequisite to its assertion is a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property.”), reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1035 , 107 S.Ct. 22 , 92 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986); Howard W.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trinity Resources, Inc. v. Twp. of Delanco
D.N.J. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
Williamson at 192-93, 105 S.Ct. at 3119-20 (citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also MacDonald, Sommer & Frotes v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340 , 106 S.Ct. 2561 , 91 *795 L.Ed.2d 285, reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1035 , 107 S.Ct. 22 , 92 L.Ed.2d 773 (1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Interstate Commerce Commission
v.
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
No. 85-792; No. 85-793.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 3, 1986.
478 U.S. 1035
Published

C. A. D. C. Cir. [Certiorari granted, 475 U. S. 1081.] Motion of respondents Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers et al. for divided argument granted.