Connection lost
Server error
Unity Real Estate Company, No. 97-3234 v. Marty D. Hudson Michael H. Holland Thomas O.S. Rand Elliott A. Segal Carlton R. Sickles Gail R. Wilensky William P. Hopgood Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas F. Connors Robert Wallace Trustees of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan United States of America (Intervenor in District Court), Ltv Corporation (Ltv), Nacco Industries, Inc. (Nacco) Amicus Curiae. Barnes and Tucker Company, No. 97-3236 v. Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Elliott A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hopgood, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas F. Connors, Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Robert G. Wallace, Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan United States of America (Intervenor in the District Court), Ltv Corporation (Ltv), Nacco Industries, Inc. (Nacco) Amicus Curiae Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Former coal operators, who signed post-1974 benefit agreements, challenged the Coal Act’s retroactive liability for retiree health benefits. The court upheld the Act, finding it did not violate substantive due process or constitute an unconstitutional taking, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court’s decision in Eastern Enterprises.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the application of Eastern Enterprises, holding that severe retroactive liability for retiree benefits is constitutional for employers who participated in post-1974 agreements that created reasonable expectations of lifetime benefits, even if the liability is financially ruinous to the company.
Unity Real Estate Company, No. 97-3234 v. Marty D. Hudson Michael H. Holland Thomas O.S. Rand Elliott A. Segal Carlton R. Sickles Gail R. Wilensky William P. Hopgood Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas F. Connors Robert Wallace Trustees of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan United States of America (Intervenor in District Court), Ltv Corporation (Ltv), Nacco Industries, Inc. (Nacco) Amicus Curiae. Barnes and Tucker Company, No. 97-3236 v. Marty D. Hudson, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Michael H. Holland, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund and Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Thomas O.S. Rand, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Elliott A. Segal, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Carlton R. Sickles, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Gail R. Wilensky, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund William P. Hopgood, Trustee of the United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund Thomas F. Connors, Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan Robert G. Wallace, Trustee of the 1992 United Mine Workers of America Benefit Plan United States of America (Intervenor in the District Court), Ltv Corporation (Ltv), Nacco Industries, Inc. (Nacco) Amicus Curiae Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (Coal Act) was enacted to ensure funding for the health benefits of retired coal miners. The Act assigned liability for these benefits to former coal operators. The plaintiffs, Unity Real Estate Company and Barnes & Tucker Co., were former operators who challenged the Act’s constitutionality as applied to them. Unlike the company in Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, both plaintiffs were signatories to the 1974 and subsequent National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreements (NBCWAs). The court noted that these agreements, which contained language providing health cards “for life,” were identified by the Supreme Court as the origin of an industry-wide commitment to lifetime benefits. Unity’s predecessor was bound by an NBCWA until 1981, and B&T until 1988. Both companies argued that the Coal Act’s retroactive imposition of liability violated substantive due process and constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment, as the financial burden would bankrupt them. Unity’s liability was over six times its total assets, and B&T projected its assets would be depleted within two years.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 violate the substantive due process or takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment when applied to former coal operators who signed post-1974 benefit agreements that created expectations of lifetime benefits, even if the imposed liability is financially ruinous?
No. The Coal Act is constitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna al
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 violate the substantive due process or takings clauses of the Fifth Amendment when applied to former coal operators who signed post-1974 benefit agreements that created expectations of lifetime benefits, even if the imposed liability is financially ruinous?
Conclusion
This case establishes that retroactive economic legislation can survive a due process Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit e
Legal Rule
Economic legislation that imposes severe retroactive liability does not violate substantive due Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est
Legal Analysis
The court distinguished this case from *Eastern Enterprises*, where the company had Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Coal Act is constitutional as applied to operators who signed
