Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment

23 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Drakes BAY Land Co. v. The United States
  424 F.2d 574· Ct. Cl.· 1970-04-17 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the government's actions, including its influence on local authorities and its acceptance of a deed intended to block a road project, constituted a taking of the plaintiff's entire property, entitling them to just compensation.
• The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. The United States
  390 F.2d 686· Ct. Cl.· 1968-02-16 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the sale of certain reservation lands to homesteaders was not a Fifth Amendment taking because Congress acted in good faith to transmute land to money at full value, but the granting of school lands to North Dakota at an arbitrarily low price constituted a Fif
• (1) Jake Klein v. The United States
  375 F.2d 825· Ct. Cl.· 1967-04-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that plaintiffs have no cause of action for the 'taking' of gravel contracts because the contracts themselves were not taken, but merely frustrated by the government's lawful action. Compensation for the gravel deposits as part of the land was for the district cour
• Devines v. Maier
  665 F.2d 138· 7th Cir.· 1981-11-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the City's enforcement of its housing code, which resulted in the eviction of tenants from their homes, constituted a regulatory taking of their leasehold interests for a public purpose, entitling them to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment and Wis.Sta
• Johnson v. The United States
  479 F.2d 1383· Ct. Cl.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the installation of fences by the United States within a state highway right-of-way, which restricted but did not totally deprive landowners of access to their property, constituted a reasonable exercise of police power and not a compensable taking under the F
• Armijo v. The United States
  663 F.2d 90· Ct. Cl.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 8×
  The court agrees that summary judgment should be denied because the date of taking, and thus the statute of limitations, cannot be determined without further fact development.
• Camacho v. The United States
  494 F.2d 1363· Ct. Cl.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Claims held that the plaintiffs' petition for just compensation was barred by the statute of limitations, as the claims accrued more than six years before the suit was filed.
• The United States v. The Cherokee Nation
  474 F.2d 628· Ct. Cl.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the valuation date for the ceded Cherokee land is June 14, 1883, the date of formal conveyance, and that the government is entitled to an offset for gratuitous interest paid on the compensation amount.
• The Cuban Truck & Equip. Co. v. The United States
  333 F.2d 873· Ct. Cl.· 1964-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claim for a taking, as the taking occurred by mid-May 1951, making the suit filed in May 1957 untimely. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove it had acquired title to the trucks under German l
• The United States v. Pueblo of Taos
  515 F.2d 1404· Ct. Cl.· 1975-05-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States' extinguishment of Pueblo of Taos' title constituted a Fifth Amendment taking, entitling them to interest, and affirmed the Indian Claims Commission's decision regarding the interest start date and refusal of other interest.
• Gregorio P. Castro v. The United States
  500 F.2d 436· Ct. Cl.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to just compensation for the use and occupancy of his land, but not for the destruction of coconut trees during wartime military operations. The statute of limitations did not bar the claim due to the continuous nature of the taking.
• Arpod J. Artwohl v. The United States
  434 F.2d 1319· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation for excess profits from duty-free car sales, as they had no vested right to such sales and voluntarily bargained away their claims for the privilege of making the sale.
• Sherrill v. The United States
  381 F.2d 744· Ct. Cl.· 1967-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The government's rerouting of a navigable river to improve navigation does not constitute a taking of private property compensable under the Fifth Amendment or the relevant statutes, as the government possesses a superior right to control navigable waters.
• Armstrong v. United States
  287 F.2d 577· Ct. Cl.· 1961-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the intrinsic value of the seized boats and materials exceeded the government's progress payments by an amount sufficient to cover the plaintiffs' claims, entitling them to just compensation.