Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kansas Department of Transportation
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided January 13, 2016No. 13-3314Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMoritz, Circuit Judge
Throughout its opinion, the majority repeatedly and consistently states that Martin Marietta asserts a property interest in actually supplying aggregate from its quarries to KDOT projects. Yet Martin Marietta challenges only the dismissal of its claim that it has a property interest in inclusion or retention on the Approved List — not in actually supplying aggregate.
Applying a properly cabined due process analysis and considering only whether Martin Marietta has a property interest in inclusion or retention on the Approved List, I would hold that Martin Marietta has plausibly stated a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of LawrenceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
- Crown Point I, LLC v. Intermountain Rural Electric Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2003
- Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste ManagementCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998
- Curtis Ambulance of Florida, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Shawnee, Kansas, and Medevac Midamerica, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.