Kentucky & Tennessee Railway Co. v. Hogue

How courts have described this case

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

• finding “any ‘reasonable investment-backed expectations’ held by plaintiffs in their medallions must be significantly tempered in light of the decades-long, highly regulated nature of the taxicab industry within the City” (emphasis in original)
• “[C]ourts have found that the government must act affirmatively to warrant the application of the Takings Clause.”
• “The Court agrees that the market value in a taxicab medallion, which is derived solely from the strict regulation of taxicabs, in the City, cannot constitute a protected property interest.”
• “Plaintiffs fail to proffer any legal support for their contention that the City’s inaction constitutes a taking. To the contrary, courts have found that the government must act affirmatively to warrant the application of the Takings Clause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).