Case Citator › Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.

Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
348 U.S. 483
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
46 of 46
Citing cases (total)
46
Treatment dates
1987
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. has one confirmed limitation after all 46 flagged citations were read. The Supreme Court declined to extend its deferential standard to a Takings Clause claim; the other reviewed opinions applied Lee Optical or distinguished it without adversely treating it.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

46 later cases cite Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.; 46 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court declined to apply Lee Optical's deferential due process standard to a Takings Clause challenge.

    Nollan v. California Coastal Commission · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    Justice Brennan relies principally on an equal protection case, Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., supra, and two substantive due process eases, Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 487-488 (1955), and Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952), in support of the standards he would adopt. But there is no reason to believe (and the language of our cases gives some reason to disbelieve) that so long as the regulation of property is at issue the standards for takings challenges, due process challenges, and equal protection challenges are identical; any more than there is any reason to believe that so long as the regulation of speech is at issue the standards for due process challenges, equal protection challenges, and First Amendment challenges are identical.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace