At page 580 “we fully understand the practical importance of the question, and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.”5 citing cases
- Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016). (We fully understand the practical importance of the question, and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.)
- Diamond v. Cuomo, 514 N.E.2d 1356 (N.Y. 1987).As we noted in Maresca , "for the repeal of such provisions, appeal lies to the ballot and to the legislative processes of democratic government, not to the courts” (id., at 249, citing Noble State Bank v Haskell, 219 US 575, 580 [Holmes,…
- Maresca v. Cuomo, 475 N.E.2d 95 (N.Y. 1984).This court is fully cognizant of the arguments that can be made against the wisdom of the challenged provisions; however, for the repeal of such provisions, appeal lies to the ballot and to the legislative processes of democratic governmen…
- Marie Patterson v. Georgia Pac., LLC, 38 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2022).(on rehearing)
- Marie Patterson v. Georgia Pac., LLC, No. 20-12733 (11th Cir. June 28, 2022).(on rehearing)
31 S. Ct. at 299 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Ambler Realty Co. v. Vill. of Euclid, 297 F. 307 (N.D. Ohio 1924).His later explanation of this language on rehearing ( 219 U. S. 580 , 31 Sup. Ct. 299, 55 L.
- Hirsh v. Block, 267 F. 614 (D.D.C. 1920).In the Noble Bank Case, supra, the court held, on petition for rehearing ( 219 U. S. 575 , 31 Sup. Ct. 299, 55 L.
31 S. Ct. at 300 denial of rehearing1 citing case
- Myers v. Toojay's Mgmt. Corp., No. 10-10774 (11th Cir. May 17, 2011).(denial of rehearing)
Other citing cases
- Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n v. Andrus, 483 F. Supp. 425 (W.D. Va. 1980).
v.
Haskell
delivered the opinion of the court.
Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this cáse. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered, ante, p. 104, seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of the question and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, etc., were cited to establish, not that property might be taken for a private use, but that ámong the public uses for which it might be taken were some which, if looked at only in their immediate aspect, according to the proximate effect of the taking, might seem to be private. This case, in our opinion, is of that sort. The analysis of the police power, whether correct or not, was intended to indicate an interpretation of what has taken place in the past not to give a new or wider scope to the power. The propositions with regard to it, however; in any form, are rather in the nature of preliminaries. For in this case there is' no out and out unconditional taking at all. The payment can be avoided by going out of the banking business, and is required only as a condition for keeping on, from corporations created by the State. We have given what we deem sufficient reasons for holding that such a condition may be imposed.
Leave to file petition denied.