Holliday Amusement Co. v. South Carolina

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that regulations for the public good in heavily regulated fields \per se do not constitute takings\
• finding that a state statute outlawing possession of video gaming machines did not effect a taking and observing that regulations for the public good in heavily regulated fields such as gambling “per se do not constitute takings”
• finding that a state statute outlawing possession of video gaming machines did not effect a taking and observing that regulations for the public good in heavily regulated fields such as gambling “per se do not constitute takings”
• holding same in Takings Clause claim; not involving RLUIPA
• “[T]he state procedures requirement does not apply to facial challenges to the validity of a state regulation”
• “[T]he state procedures requirement does not apply to facial challenges to the validity of a state regulation.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).