A third difference between the two cases was that the mining being regulated in this case was compared to a public nuisance, while the mining being regulated in "Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon" was not. In this case, the Court held that there is not a taking if "the State merely restrains uses of property that are tantamount to public nuisances." This public nuisance argument is associated with the "'reciprocity of advantage'" analysis in takings law. Reciprocity of advantage means that people may have burdensome restrictions on their private property, but they will benefit greatly from the restrictions that are placed on others. Apparently, the "Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon" majority did not think there was a reciprocity of advantage in restricting the few private landowners' land use, but the "Keystone" majority did.