Here's one we've been meaning to post for a while. It's a Court of Federal Claims opinion in a case involving an indian nation's takings lawsuit, seeking compensation for its inability to challenge the 1859 conveyance of what is now the town of Southampton, New York without the required tribal consent. Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States, No. 12-836 L (Aug. 29, 2013).
The judicial taking part of the long opinion (21 single-spaced pages) starts on page 18, where the court rejected the plaintiff's request to amend its complaint to add a claim for judicial taking. The opinion recounts the judicial takings theory but refused to allow amendment because, "the portion of the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach that discussed the standard for finding that judicial taking had occured and stated that a judicial taking was a valid cause of action was signed by only four justices." Slip op. at 18. "Indeed, plaintiff cites no case in which a property owner prevailed on a judicial takings claim, and the cases plaintiff relies upon in addition to Stop the Beach and Hughes, do not support plaintiff's position." Id. at 19 (citations omitted). The court also noted that Robinson v. Ariyoshi, 753 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1985), our favorite metaphysical judicial takings case, was vacated by the Supreme Court.
Check it out. Chief Judge Hewitt does a decent job of setting out the issues, even if you may not agree with the decision she reaches.