McRae v. Woods (1952)

After finding that the taking of the easement did not serve the same purpose as would an outright denial of the permit, the Court held that “[t]he purpose [is] the obtaining of an easement to serve some valid government purpose, but without payment of compensation.... [ujnless *1254 the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the [regulatory scheme] is not a valid regulation of land use but ‘an out and out plan of extortion’.” 483 U.S. a…

It observed however that the necessary nexus between the condition imposed and the original purpose of the building restriction did not exist noting "In short, unless the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but 'an out-and-out plan of extortion.’ ” (Supra, 483 US, at —, 97 L Ed, at 689, 107 S Ct, at 3148.) Moreover, in response to the Commission’s rationale that the publi…

See C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 211 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (1952); Esco Corporation v. United States, 340 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir. 1965). 18 However, when the plaintiff or prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence alone, the inference of unlawful agreement rather than individual business judgment must be the compelling, if not exclusive, rational inference.

See Riverview State Bank v. Ernest, 198 F.2d 876, 881 (10th Cir.) (pursuant to mortgage and transfer and division orders, the secured party constructively possessed oil produced under lease and thus its rights were superior to those of the trustee in bankruptcy), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 212 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (1952).

The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq., requires the Secretary of Agriculture to set minimum prices that handlers (those that process or distribute milk) must pay to producers (farmers) for their milk products. 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5); see Kass v. Brannan, 196 F.2d 791, 795-96 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 891 , 73 S.Ct. 210 , 97 L.Ed. 689 (1952).

See, C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 211 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (1952). 11.

See, e. g., C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co. v. United States, 197 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 892 , 73 S.Ct. 211 , 97 L.Ed. 690 (nationwide price uniformity, few competitors, previous illegal licensing agreements containing minimum price provisions, artificial standardization of product, industry-wide raising of prices at a time of surplus, policing of dealers to maintain minimum prices as contained in price lists published and distributed by defendants, iden…