Tiffany Haire v. New Haven Assisted Living of Tomball LLc

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state scheme of utility regulation did not take property and declining to adopt “a single theory of valuation as a constitutional requirement”
• stating that persons aggrieved by state court judgments must file a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, rather than appeal
• explaining that, in the field of utility rate regulation-, a reasonable rate is not a taking
• noting that the utilities had not argued or demonstrated the set rates \jeopardized the financial integrity of the companies\ or were \inadequate to compensate current equity holders for the risk associated with their investments\
• quoting, inter alia, Smyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466, 546 [18 S.Ct. 418, 433, 42 L.Ed. 819] (1898)
• upholding state statute excluding utility plant not yet in use from a utility’s rate base finding no unconstitutional taking of utility’s property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).