We’re going to wrap up 2010 with a post on our favorite topic, inverse condemnation. While the Ninth Circuit ended the year badly by making hash of both Penn Central and Palazzolo in a rent control case, other federal courts of appeals aren’t so predictably off-key. The Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the court with jurisdiction to hear most claims against the federal government for just compensation), is one in which a property owner has a decent shot at getting a court that understands the issues.
The Federal Circuit has a “bright-line rule” that the six year statute of limitations begins to run on a physical takings claim in a rail-to-trail case when a property owner’s state law reversionary interest is blocked. Caldwell v. United States, 391 F.3d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Barclay v. United States, 443 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
Now, you might think that with two binding circuit precedents and a sizeable body of other relevant case law in place, that the government might not be tempted to make contrary arguments because the trial judge would simply laugh it out of court. Not so. Indeed in this case, the trial judge bought the government’s argument, and dismissed a physical rail-to-trail takings claim, forcing the property owners to appeal.
Every now and then, a decision comes along to remind you of the arguments that get thrown up by the government when property owners make takings claims.
In Ladd v. United States, No. 2010-5010 (Dec. 14, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a compensable taking