Noble State Bank v. Haskell
Cases that cite this one
36 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers (Tex. 2009)
- Mosko v. Dunbar (Colo. 1957)
- Placek v. Edstrom (Neb. 1947)
- Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (11th Cir. 2016)
- Myers v. TOOJAY'S MANAGEMENT CORP. (11th Cir. 2011)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. John Summers (Tex. 2009)
- Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n v. Andrus (District Court, W.D. Virginia 1980)
- LeForce v. Bullard (Okla. 1969)
- Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1968)
- Wallace v. Hudson-Duncan & Co. (9th Cir. 1938)
- Priest v. Whitney Loan & Trust Co. (Iowa 1935)
- Sloan Lumber Co. v. Southern Ornamental Iron Works (Tex. App. 1933)
- Pascagoula Nat. Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia 1924)
- Myers v. Toojay's Management Corp. (11th Cir. 2011)
- In re Mechanics Trust Co. (New Jersey Court of Chancery 1935)
- State Ex Rel. Osage County Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Worten (Okla. 1933)
- First State Bank v. Smith (S.D. 1926)
- Board of County Commissioners v. Bone (Kan. 1926)
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1924)
- Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1924)
- Hirsh v. Block (District Court, District of Columbia 1920)
- Citizens' Nat. Bank of Broken Arrow v. State Ex Rel. Freeling (Okla. 1919)
- Marie Patterson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC (11th Cir. 2022)
- Marie Patterson v. Georgia Pacific, LLC (11th Cir. 2022)
- Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (11th Cir. 2016)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked in this cáse. We see no reason to grant it, but, as the judgment delivered, ante, p. 104, seems to have conveyed a wrong impression of the opinion of the court in some details, we add a few words to what was said when the case was decided. We fully understand the practical importance of the question and the very powerful argument that can be made against the wisdom of the legislation, but on that point we have nothing to say, as it is not our concern.. Clark v. Nash, 198 U. S. 361, Strickley v. Highland Boy Mining Co., 200 U. S. 527, etc., were cited to establish, not that property might be taken for a private use, but that ámong the public uses for which it might be taken were some which, if looked at only in their immediate aspect, according to the proximate effect of the taking, might seem to be private. This case, in our opinion, is of that sort. The analysis of the police power, whether correct or not, was intended to indicate an interpretation of what has taken place in the past not to give a new or wider scope to the power. The propositions with regard to it, however; in any form, are rather in the nature of preliminaries. For in this case there is' no out and out unconditional taking at all. The payment can be avoided by going out of the banking business, and is required only as a condition for keeping on, from corporations created by the State. We have given what we deem sufficient reasons for holding that such a condition may be imposed.
Leave to file petition denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.