To begin with, Rehnquist attacked the majority's view that Justice Holmes' opinion in "PA Coal" was "uncharacteristically ... advisory." Rehnquist believed that no part of the "Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon" opinion was advisory in nature. In fact, he found the majority's opinion "particularly disturbing" and believed that their disregard for "Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon" essentially ignored a case that "for 65 years been the foundation of [the Court's 'regulatory takings' jurisprudence." He pointed to the often quoted phrase from "Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon" that "'if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking'" and listed five cases where it had been relied on in reaching an outcome. Rehnquist was very troubled by the fact that "Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon" had been cited and relied on as precedent in previous takings cases, but was now only considered to be advisory.