In 1878, Pennsylvania Coal Company conveyed the surface of the property but expressly reserved the right to remove all coal beneath it, and the grantee assumed the risk and waived claims for damages arising from mining. The present plaintiffs claimed under that deed and sought to stop the company from mining under their property in a way that would cause subsidence of the surface and their house. They relied on the Pennsylvania Kohler Act of 1921, which forbade mining anthracite coal so as to cause the subsidence of certain structures used as human habitations. As applied in this case, the statute was admitted to destroy previously existing property and contract rights.
Issue
Whether the Pennsylvania Kohler Act, as applied to prevent the coal company from exercising its reserved right to mine coal beneath the plaintiffs' property, was a valid exercise of the police power or instead went so far as to effect a taking of property requiring compensation.
Rule
Property may be regulated to a certain extent, but if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. In deciding whether regulation has gone too far, one important consideration is the extent of the diminution in value, and when the diminution reaches a certain magnitude there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Scranton, Pennsylvania, Lena Ortiz owns the surface of a residential lot. A prior deed reserved to Blue Summit Minerals the right to remove all limestone beneath the lot, and the deed states that the surface owner assumes the risk of settling and waives damages. Pennsylvania later enacts a statute forbidding limestone extraction that would cause subsidence of any single private dwelling, and compliance would leave Blue Summit unable to profitably extract the limestone under Lena's parcel.
If Blue Summit challenges the statute as applied to its parcel, which argument is strongest under the majority's reasoning?
Explanation. The majority held that regulation may become a taking when it goes too far. It emphasized the great extent of the burden where a statute destroys previously existing property and contract rights and makes mining commercially impracticable. It also stressed that the public interest was limited where the case involved a single private house rather than a public nuisance or broader public use. Under that reasoning, the strongest argument is that the statute has effectively destroyed a valuable reserved mineral estate and therefore requires compensation.