We break from our Brigham-Kanner Conference programming to bring you this development. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its first post-Tohono O’Odham Nation v. United States opinion, Trusted Integration, Inc. v. United States, No. 2010-5142 (Oct. 14, 2011), involving the Court of Federal Claims’ subject matter jurisdiction
Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit
Federal Circuit On The Metaphysics Of Takings Claim Accrual
In case you were not paying attention on this fine Thursday, here comes the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Mildenberger v. United States, No. 2010-5084 (June 30, 2011). It’s an interesting opinion because it deals with the mildly metaphysical question of when the six year statute of limitations for inverse condemnation claims against the federal…
SCOTUS Opinion In Tohono: Court Of Federal Claims Has No Jurisdiction When District Court Suit Based On Same Facts
This just in: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 7-1 that when a District Court lawsuit and a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims are based on the same operative facts, the CFC has no subject matter jurisdiction. United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, No. 09-846, (cert. granted Apr. 19, 2010).
Although…
Another Cert Petition Asks: Can A Post-Regulation Purchaser Bring A Takings Claim?
In CRV Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 626 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears appeals in regulatory taking and inverse condemnation cases against the federal government) held the EPA’s installation of a log boom on a navigable waterway in California’s central valley…
SCOTUS Amicus Brief: Can A Post-Regulation Purchaser Bring A Takings Claim?
Today, on behalf of the Manufactured Housing Institute, we filed this amicus brief (also available below) in the U.S. Supreme Court in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 10-1125 (petition for cert. filed Mar. 11, 2011). In that case, California mobile home park owners are asking the Court to review the decision of…
Of DIBEs, Rose Acre Farms IV, And Cienega X: Federal Circuit Considering Penn Central
In CCA Associates v. United States, No. 97-334C (Jan. 29, 2010), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held that two federal statutes worked a taking under the three-part Penn Central test because it abrogated the rights of the owner of a Louisiana apartment building to prepay its way out of providing low income housing.
Federal Circuit: Temporary Flooding Causing Permanent Damage Is Not A Taking
In Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 2009-5121 (Mar. 30, 2011), a case in which the Game and Fish Commission asserted that the Corps of Engineers’ deviations from a dam’s operating plan caused increased flooding and resulted in the destruction of trees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit…
Federal Circuit: Water Rights, Once Proven, Are Fifth Amendment “Property”
This just in: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an opinion in Klamath Irrigation District v. United States, No. 2007-5115 (Feb. 17, 2010), a case we’ve been watching.
I’m at the ALI-ABA conference on eminent domain in Coral Gables, Florida, so won’t have the chance to digest and summarize…
CFC: No Jurisdiction Over Iraqi’s Claim That Marines Took His Home During Battle Of Fallujah
Here’s an unusual takings case for you, and a decision that is worth reading, if only for its detail about wartime takings and clandestine contracts with the government. Besides, any court opinion that references “Maxwell’s Smart’s shoe phone” earns a spot on the to-read list, no?
In Doe v. United States, No.
Federal Circuit: Tucker Act Not Available When Congress Provides Other Relief
In a case with “a lengthy procedural history spanning the past three decades and involving litigation in various federal courts,” in Innovair Aviation Ltd. v. United States, No. 2010-5025 (Jan. 25, 2010), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Court of Federal Claims had no subject matter jurisdiction…
