Yes, the granddaddy of all SCOTUS regulatory takings cases, from which we got such phrases as these was argued 100 years ago this day.
- "The general rule, at least, is that, while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking."
- "Government hardly could go on if, to some extent, values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law."
- "We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change."
- "As long recognized, some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation, and must yield to the police power. But obviously the implied limitation must have its limits, or the contract and due process clauses are gone."
- "When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most if not in all cases, there must be an exercise of eminent domain and compensation to sustain the act."
That's right, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) was argued today a century ago. November 14, 1922. The case was argued in what is now called the Old Senate Chamber (the Court only later moved across the street to its present digs).
If only they had the arguments recorded!