|
''Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'', , was a landmark case in United States regulatory takings law whereby the Court expressly overruled precedent created in ''Agins v. City of Tiburon'', 447 US 255, (1980). Agins held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Writing for the Court, Justice O’Connor found the test untenable for a number of reasons, but declined to grant Chevron relief because Chevron’s motion before the court (for grant of summary judgment) was limited to a discussion of the “substantially advances” theory which had just been struck down. The Court remanded back to the Ninth Circuit for a determination of whether the statute exacted a ''Penn Central''-like taking. == Facts == Because of the distance from the continental United States and the logistical difficulties presented by the numerous islands that make up the state of Hawaii, only two oil refineries and six wholesale distributors were doing business in Hawaii, thus creating an oligopoly of gas providers. Chevron, USA was the largest refiner and marketer of gasoline in Hawaii controlling 60% of the market for gasoline produced or refined in-state and 30% of the wholesale market on Oahu, Hawaii’s most populous island. 544 U.S. at 531. Half of all of retail service stations in Hawaii are leased from oil companies by independent lessee-dealers, some are owned by the oil companies, and some are owned by dealers who are not affiliated with any specific refinery. Chevron sells most of its products through the independent-lessee program, whereby Chevron charges the lessee a monthly rent (a percentage of the margin on sales) and requires the lessee to enter into an outputs contract, whereby the Chevron supplies the lessee with all gasoline products. In 1997, in response to concerns about the effects of concentration of retail service stations and the market implications, the Hawaii Legislature enacted Act 257, restricting, among other things, the amount of rent that an oil company can charge their dealer-lessee to 15% of the dealer’s gross profits from sales, plus an additional 15% of gross sales of other products. Chevron sued the State in the United States District Court of the District of Hawaii, claimed that the statute’s rent cap effected a taking of Chevron’s property in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|