Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
18 Cl. Ct. 394 (1989)
- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Whitney Benefits, Inc. and the Peter Kiewit Sons’ Company (the miners) (plaintiffs) had interests in several mineral tracts and developed a strip mining plan for the area. The area was under a valley floor, which had important implications for farming in the area. While the miners were developing their plan, Congress passed the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). That law was designed to balance mining rights with agriculture and the environment. The SMCRA generally prohibited surface mining operations on valley floors unless the operations could be shown to have negligible impacts on farming in the area. The miners spent around $1 million conducting preliminary tests and developing their plans. Government authorities (defendants) denied the miners’ permit applications under the SMCRA. The miners then sued under the Tucker Act, claiming that the SMCRA constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The government authorities contended that underground mining constituted an alternative use of the land.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
