Members of the Peanut Quota Holders Association, Inc., Augustus Garrett, Jerome Paulk, Faye Paulk, and D.U. Pullum v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that 2002 Farm Bill's changes in quota program did not result in compensable taking under Fifth Amendment
• stating that a fishing license \is merely a representation by the government that it will not interfere with the licensee's efforts to catch fish.\
• stating that a fishing license “is merely a representation by the government that it will not interfere with the licensee’s efforts to catch fish.”
• explaining that holders of certain interests in heavily regulated areas “have no legally protected right against the government’s making changes in the underlying program and no right to compensation for the loss in value resulting from the changes”
• explaining that holders of certain interests in heavily regulated areas “have no legally protected right against the government’s making changes in the underlying program and no right to compensation for the loss in value resulting from the changes”
• distinguishing between peanut quota allotments, which include a property right, and certain fishing licenses, which do not

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).