Скачать или смотреть Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon | 260 U.S. 393 (1922)

The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause seems pretty straightforward. If the city needs your house to expand the road in front of it, the city can seize your property by eminent domain. But they must pay you just compensation for it. That’s the easy part. But what if, instead of taking your land, the law prohibits you from using it, or from profiting from it? The United States Supreme Court considered that issue almost a century ago in Pennsylvania Coal Company versus Mahon.

Pennsylvania Coal Company owned a parcel of land rich in subsurface coal. In 1878, Pennsylvania Coal deeded the surface rights to Mahon, but retained the right to mine the coal beneath the surface. The deed clearly stated that Mahon accepted the surface rights subject to any risks associated with the company’s coal mining. Even if the company’s mining operations damaged Mahon’s property, Mahon waived all claims for the resulting damages. Despite the risk, Mahon built a house on the land.

But in 1921, the State of Pennsylvania passed the Kohler Act, which prohibited coal mining that might threaten any residential structure above the mine. Since Pennsylvania Coal’s mining on the parcel would put Mahon’s house at risk, the act effectively prohibited the company from removing any coal from that parcel. Mahon sued the company in the Court of Common Pleas, arguing that the Kohler Act entitled him to an injunction preventing the company from mining under his home.

The Court of Common Pleas agreed that the act prohibited the company from mining on the parcel, but denied Mahon his injunction. The court held that applying the act to Pennsylvania Coal would be unconstitutional. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed that the company’s property rights were constitutionally protected, but ruled that the act was nevertheless a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power and ordered that the injunction be issued. The United States Supreme Court accepted the case.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pennsyl...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pennsyl...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  
Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries