Declaration Of Taking Act

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

• Wilson v. United States
  350 F.2d 901· 10th Cir.· 1965-09-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a commission's findings in a condemnation case are binding on the trial court unless clearly erroneous, and that taking more land than strictly necessary for a public use is permissible if done within authorized discretion and without bad faith.
• City of Oakland v. United States
  124 F.2d 959· 9th Cir.· 1942-01-14 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the District Court did not err in entering a judgment of condemnation and denying the motion to vacate, as the Declaration of Taking Act and related procedures comply with statutory and constitutional requirements, including due process.
• United States v. 341.45 Acres OF Land
  751 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The court should affirm the denial of attorneys' fees and expenses because the EAJA does not apply to condemnation cases.
• Tektronix, Inc. v. The United States
  552 F.2d 343· Ct. Cl.· 1977-03-23 ·cited 38×
  The court's exercise of its power to fix past period interest rates for future cases is historically grounded and appropriate.
• State Rd. Dept. v. Forehand
  56 So. 2d 901· Fla.· 1952-02-12 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Chapter 74, Florida Statutes, which provides a summary method for the State Road Department to acquire property for public use pending condemnation proceedings. The court found that the statute adequately protects property
• Pitcairn v. The United States
  547 F.2d 1106· Ct. Cl.· 1976-12-15 ·cited 34×
  The court should award six percent interest for the period of the taking, as established by federal statutes for Fifth Amendment takings, rather than higher rates based on corporate bond yields.
• Evans v. United States
  326 F.2d 827· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 32×
  Jury verdicts within the range of valuation testimony are conclusive and will not be disturbed as inadequate, and evidence of prior private sales by a witness is inadmissible without a proper foundation.
• United States v. Richardson
  204 F.2d 552· 5th Cir.· 1953-05-06 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the order abating prosecution was not a final decision nor an appealable injunction, and that the government's appeal and mandamus petition were therefore dismissed. The court also found that any error in the district court's orders was invited by the governme
• United States v. Blankinship
  543 F.2d 1272· 9th Cir.· 1976-10-15 ·cited 28×
  The Fifth Amendment may require an interest rate exceeding the 6% statutory rate in the Declaration of Taking Act to provide just compensation for delayed payment of deficiencies, and this determination is a factual question.
• Pete v. The United States
  531 F.2d 1018· Ct. Cl.· 1976-03-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the government's action banning commercial use of the plaintiffs' barges constituted an inverse condemnation compensable under the Fifth Amendment, and that the barges could not be practically removed intact or disassembled and reassembled.
• In re United States Praying for a Writ of Mandamus or Writ of Prohibition
  257 F.2d 844· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district judge lacks the power to vacate a declaration of taking based on the inadequacy of the estimated compensation, as this function is vested in the acquiring authority.
• United States v. Savannah Shipyards, Inc.
  139 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1944-01-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that while certain expenditures were improperly admitted as evidence of construction cost, this did not require reversal due to jury instructions and the collateral nature of the error. However, the court erred in awarding 7% interest on the judgment, which should
• Edwards v. Ark. Power & Light Co.
  683 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 16×
  The court applies Pullman abstention, finding unsettled state law questions regarding res judicata and bad-faith claims may determine the federal due process claim.
• Dade Cnty. v. United States
  142 F.2d 230· 5th Cir.· 1944-04-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an appeal from orders regarding possession and title in a condemnation proceeding is premature and not a final judgment.
• United States v. 1
  564 F.2d 1350· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering separate trials for different landowners' interests in a condemnation case, nor in admitting evidence of post-condemnation prices.
• United States v. 58.16 Acres OF Land
  478 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a landowner's challenge to the government's right to take property in eminent domain is an appealable order if the challenge raises fundamental issues of bad faith or arbitrariness, even if interlocutory.
• United States v. 967
  447 F.2d 764· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the cabin barges, despite being difficult to remove, were personal property and not compensable fixtures in the condemnation of the land. The court also found that Section 111 of the Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Act of 1970 applied to the case, requiri
• United States v. Hirsch
  206 F.2d 289· 2d Cir.· 1953-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a post-judgment deposit, even with a reservation of restitution rights, is a valid tender and that the Committee's valuation was supported by sufficient evidence, rejecting both the government's and Hirsch's appeals.
• United States v. 1
  137 F.2d 8· 8th Cir.· 1943-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court abused its discretion by denying amendments to the declarations of taking and erred in its method of computing interest.
• United States v. 640.00 Acres OF Land
  756 F.2d 842· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-03 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge holds that the landowner is not entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act in a "straight" condemnation proceeding because the government prevails by taking title to the land.
• United States v. Arison Agee
  322 F.2d 139· 6th Cir.· 1963-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while judicial review of administrative decisions in eminent domain is narrow, it is permissible to review for bad faith, and the District Court correctly found no bad faith in the taking of the entire tract.
• Bank OF Edenton v. United States
  152 F.2d 251· 4th Cir.· 1945-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the parties' license agreement, which stipulated the property's valuation date, controlled over the date of the declaration of taking or possession for condemnation purposes.
• Lewis S. and Jean S. Travis v. United States
  287 F.2d 916· Ct. Cl.· 1961-03-01 ·cited 10×
  Title vested in the United States on the date of the declaration of taking, and compensation should be based on the value as of that date, not a later date when the property's value increased.
• United States v. City OF NEW York (and ten other cases)
  186 F.2d 418· 2d Cir.· 1951-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the government is not liable for interest on funds deposited in court and available for distribution, even if distribution was delayed by claimant disputes. Interest is only due on deficiencies in the government's deposits.
• United States v. Merchs. Transfer & Storage Co.
  144 F.2d 324· 9th Cir.· 1944-07-31 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to order the United States to vacate property it had seized or to hold it liable for contempt damages, as the sovereign cannot be sued without its consent.
• United States v. Catlin
  142 F.2d 781· 7th Cir.· 1944-06-02 ·cited 10×
  A judgment entered upon a Declaration of Taking in a condemnation proceeding is interlocutory and not subject to appellate review.
• United States v. 2.4 Acres OF Land
  138 F.2d 295· 7th Cir.· 1943-10-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's verdict in a condemnation suit, even with differing expert valuations, is permissible if supported by evidence and not based on a false theory. The court also affirmed the use of a jury view of the premises and the admission of reproduction cost evi
• United States v. 2
  696 F.2d 351· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 8×
  The court reversed an award of death benefits, finding that the claimant's death, occurring nine years after a work-related injury, fell outside the statutory five-year limit for benefits following continuous disability.
• Story v. Marsh
  732 F.2d 1375· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers' decision to artificially crevasse the frontline levee is an action committed to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable, and that the district court erred in granting an injunction and in its rulings on condemnation cases.
• Calvo v. United States
  303 F.2d 902· 9th Cir.· 1962-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court erred in fixing the valuation date as 1949; the correct valuation date is August 7, 1958, the date the declaration of taking was filed. The court also rejected the argument that the government should not pay for enhanced value due to its pri
• McKENDRY v. United States
  219 F.2d 357· 9th Cir.· 1955-01-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that appeals from orders denying motions to dismiss a condemnation proceeding and setting a surrender date are premature when taken before a final judgment. The court also held that landowners accepting a portion of the deposited estimated just compensation does no
• United States v. Priest Rapids Irr. Dist.
  175 F.2d 524· 9th Cir.· 1949-06-21 ·cited 6×
  The court's decision violates federal condemnation law, Washington state law, and the Fifth Amendment by improperly withholding condemnation awards from a dissolved corporation.
• Turnbull v. United States
  139 F.2d 126· 6th Cir.· 1943-11-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order allowing amendment of a declaration of taking to reduce the estimated compensation and ordering a refund of the difference is not a final, appealable order.
• United States v. 50.50 Acres OF Land
  931 F.2d 1349· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that interest on deposited funds is only required if government action delays disbursement, and that the landowners were not the prevailing party under the EAJA for cost awards. The court also found the district court erred in determining the interest rate and awar
• United States v. 161.99 Acres OF Land
  512 F.2d 65· 5th Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that landowners are entitled to compensation based on the value of the property at the time of taking, not the date of trial, even in cases of significant property value increase.
• O'Connor v. United States
  155 F.2d 425· 9th Cir.· 1946-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's taking of possession of land for a public works project did not constitute a taking of the title to a profit a prendre (right to remove gravel) until compensation was paid, and the government could abandon the condemnation proceeding before ti
• Herring v. United States
  781 F.2d 119· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to Herring, who was considered a prevailing party despite not obtaining title.
• United States v. 50 Acres OF Land
  706 F.2d 1356· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 2×
  A public condemnee with a duty to replace a condemned facility is entitled to the reasonable cost of a functionally equivalent substitute facility, not just its fair market value.
• United States v. McCRORY Holding Co.
  294 F.2d 812· 5th Cir.· 1961-09-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the date of taking for eminent domain proceedings, for the purpose of fixing compensation, is the date of the filing of the Declaration of Taking, not the date of the initial filing of the condemnation action or earlier possession under a prior, related procee
• Gibbs et ux. v. United States
  150 F.2d 504· 4th Cir.· 1945-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the transfer of jurisdiction over a housing project from the Federal Works Administrator to the Navy Department divested the Administrator of the power to dispose of the property, rendering a subsequent deed invalid.
• United States v. 0.95 Acres OF Land
  994 F.2d 696· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-01
  The court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cannot be used as a defense to a condemnation action under the Declaration of Taking Act, as the filing of a declaration of taking is not a major federal action requiring NEPA compliance.
• Uithoven v. U.S. Army Corps OF Eng'rs
  884 F.2d 844· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-02
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing Uithoven's frivolous complaint and initiating Rule 11 sanctions, and that the appeal itself was frivolous warranting sanctions.