Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { ?s ?p "First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6-3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored."@en }
Showing triples 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 triples per page.
- First_English_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_v._Los_Angeles_County abstract "First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6-3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.".
- Q5452963 abstract "First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6-3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.".
- First_English_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_v._Los_Angeles_County comment "First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6-3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.".
- Q5452963 comment "First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), was a 6-3 decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that the complete destruction of the value of property constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution even if that taking was temporary and the property was later restored.".