Waste Management, Inc. Of Tennessee v. Metropolitan Government Of Nashville And Davidson County (1997)
green
· 93 citation events
across 10 courts.
Showing the 20 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199720112026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Natl Solid Wastes v. Daviess Cnty KY (2006)
There, the county enacted a “flow-control” regulation that required, among other things, that all residential waste collected within the county be disposed of at a “waste-to-energy” facility owned by the county. 130 F.3d at 733.
There, the county enacted a “flow-control” regulation that required, among other things, that all residential waste collected within the county be disposed of at a “waste-to-energy” facility owned by the county. 130 F.3d at 733.
Waste Mgt., Inc. of Tennessee v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 130 F.3d 731, 735 (6th Cir. 1997), cert, denied, 523 U.S. 1094 , 118 S.Ct. 1560 , 140 L.Ed.2d 792 (1998).
green
McCarthy v. City of Cleveland (2010)
Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1997).
green
Huish Detergents Inc v. Warren Cnty KY (2000)
Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 130 F.3d 731, 735 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1094 (1998).
green
United States v. Jerry Szoka (2001)
Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731, 735 (6th Cir.1997).
green
Daisy Investment Corp. v. City of Seven Hills (2024)
Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1997)).
green
Urban Necessities 1Stop Shop, LLC v. Cleveland (2023)
Gov't of Nashville and Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1997)).
Inc. of Tenn. v. Metropolitan Govt. of Nashville and Davidson Cty., 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir. 1997) ("The primary purpose of the Takings Clause is to prevent the government from requiring certain individuals to bear burdens which should be borne by society as a whole.") To survive a motion seeking the dismissal of a Fifth Amendment takings claim, the plaintiff must sufficiently allege that (1) the plaintiff possessed a cognizable “property interest” and (2) a “taking” of s…
"The primary purpose of the Takings Clause is to prevent the government from requiring certain individuals to bear burdens which should be borne by society as a whole."
green
Center for Powell Crossing, LLC v. City of Powell (2016)
Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1997).
Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1997).
green
Midwest Retailer Associated, Ltd. v. City of Toledo (2008)
Instead, I consider several factors, including: “[t]he economic impact of the regulation on the claimant”; 2) “the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations”; and 3) “the character of the governmental action.” Id.; Waste Mgmt., supra, 130 F.3d at 737.
green
VanWulfen v. Montmorency County (2004)
Gov’t of Nashville and Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731, 737 (6th Cir.1997) (citing Penn Cent.
green
D.A.B.E., Inc. v. City of Toledo (2003)
The Court has, however, identified several factors which have particular significance in determining whether there has been a taking, namely 1) the character *972 of the governmental action; 2) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; and 3) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with the claimant’s distinct investment-backed expectations. 130 F.3d at 737 (internal quotations and citations omitted); see also Anderson, 266 F.3d at 493 .
internal quotations and citations omitted
green
Sean Breen, as Administrator of the Estate of Christopher Breen Christopher Breen John E. Breen Marian K. Bre… (2007)
See Randolph, 130 F.3d at 731; Doe, 113 F.3d at 1415; Piotrowski I, 51 F.3d at 515-16; Johnson, 38 F.3d at 201; Leffall, 28 F.3d at 530-31.
green
Breen v. Texas A&M University (2007)
See Randolph, 130 F.3d at 731; Doe, 113 F.3d at 1415; Piotrowski I, 51 F.3d at 515-16; Johnson, 38 F.3d at 201; Leffall, 28 F.3d at 530-31.
green
Southern Electrical Health Fund v. Bedrock Services (2005)
See Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Nashville & Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731, 735 (6th Cir.1997) (stating that “[a]n abuse of discretion exists when the district court applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact” (quoting First Tech.
See PGBA, LLC v. United States, 389 F.3d 1219, 1228-29 (Fed.Cir.2004) (stating that when the injunction is permanent, actual success on the merits must be shown); see generally Waste Management, Inc. of Tenn. v. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 130 F.3d 731 , 735 (6th Cir.1997) (stating abuse of discretion standard).
green
TJM 64, Inc v. Shelby County Mayor Lee Harris (2020)
See Waste Mgmt. v. Metro Gov’t, 130 F.3d 731 , 737 (6th Cir. 1997).
See id. at 736 .