STRICKLEY V. HIGHLAND BOY GOLD MINING CO., 200 U. S. 527 (1906)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 200 U. S. 527
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/200/527/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/200/527/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co., 200 U.S. 527 (1906)
Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Company
No. 172
Argued January 25, 1906
Decided February 19, 1906
200 U.S. 527
Syllabus
If a state statute as construed by the highest court of the state is constitutional, this Court will follow that construction.
There is nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment which prevents a state in carrying out its declared public policy from requiring individuals to make to each other, on due compensation, such concessions as the public welfare demands, and the statute of Utah providing that eminent domain may be exercised for railways and other means to facilitate the working of mines is not unconstitutional. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, followed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.