Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Violation

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

• Fla. Power Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
  772 F.2d 1537· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the FCC's order mandating reduced rates for cable attachments to utility poles constituted a taking of private property without just compensation, and that the Pole Attachments Act is unconstitutional because it improperly vests the FCC with the judicial funct
• Ohio Student Loan Comm'n v. Lauro F. Cavazos
  900 F.2d 894· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the excess reserves do not constitute private property subject to Fifth Amendment takings protection, and the 1987 Amendments did not breach contractual rights or violate the Due Process Clause.
• S.C. State Educ. Assistance Auth. v. Lauro F. Cavazos
  897 F.2d 1272· 4th Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the excess reserve funds and contractual rights to reimbursement payments under the Guaranteed Student Loan Program are not 'private property' protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, as they are subject to federal control and statutory amendments.
• Great Lakes Higher Educ. Corp. v. Lauro F. Cavazos
  911 F.2d 10· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the 1987 amendment to the Higher Education Act did not violate the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, as the reserve fund excess was not private property and contractual rights were subject to congressional amendment.
• Consol. Edison Co. OF NEW York, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  676 F.2d 763· D.C. Cir.· 1982-04-20 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed FERC's approval of an end-use curtailment plan that did not require compensation for customers experiencing below-average curtailment, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious and did not violate the Natural Gas Act.
• Schwarz v. Kogan
  132 F.3d 1387· 11th Cir.· 1998-01-12 ·cited 9×
  Thomas Rowe Schwarz, a Florida attorney, challenged Rule 4-6.1 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, which requires Bar members to report annually whether they have complied with aspirational pro bono service goals (either 20 hours of legal services to the poor or a $350 contr
• Alieda Maron v. Chief Fin. Officer of Fla.
  136 F.4th 1322· 11th Cir.· 2025-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court had jurisdiction over the takings claim, vacating the dismissal and remanding for further proceedings, as the Act's retention of post-liquidation earnings may constitute a Fifth Amendment taking.
• Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & the United States
  853 F.2d 145· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that 16 U.S.C. § 1247(d) is a valid exercise of Congress's commerce clause power and does not effect a taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
• State OF Minn. By Joseph N. Alexander v. Block
  660 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 7×
  Congress acted within its constitutional authority under the Property Clause to regulate motorboat and snowmobile use within the BWCAW, even on non-federal lands and waters, to protect the wilderness character. Section 5(c) of the Act, granting the US a right of first refusal on
• Garelick v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D.
  987 F.2d 913· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the OBRA-89 limiting charge scheme does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking because physicians are not legally compelled to participate in the Medicare Part B program, and that limited-income beneficiaries lack standing to challenge the scheme due to a fai
• Gulf Power Co. v. United States
  998 F. Supp. 1386· N.D. Fla.· 1998-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Pole Attachment Act's mandatory access provision constitutes a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment because it requires utilities to grant access, thereby divesting them of their right to exclude, and that the FCC cannot determine just compensation for
• S. Dade Land Corp. v. Sullivan
  853 F. Supp. 404· S.D. Fla.· 1993-11-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for any of their claims, thus denying their emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.
• Media Gen. Cable OF Fairfax, Inc. v. Sequoyah Condo. Council OF Co-Owners
  991 F.2d 1169· 4th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 1×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion. The author disagrees with the majority's interpretation of the Cable Act and its avoidance of the takings issue.
• Cone v. the Florida Bar
  626 F. Supp. 132· M.D. Fla.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that interest earned on nominal or short-term funds held in Florida's Interest on Trust Accounts (IOTA) program does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest of the client, and therefore, its appropriation by the program does not violate the Fi
• Alford v. Walton Cnty.
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-17
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Walton County's ordinance barring access to private beaches constituted a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, entitling landowners to just compensation. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims for prospective relief as moot.
• Osceola v. Forsyth
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, warranting dismissal.
• Hill v. Johnson
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-06-09
  The court granted motions to dismiss, denying the plaintiff's request to amend and permanently enjoining him from filing new actions without prior court approval.
• Rhodes v. City of Jacksonville
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-15
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• Mohit v. City of Haines City
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-05-11
  The court held that the City's land development regulations and conditional use permit did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment because they did not deprive the plaintiff of all economically beneficial or productive use of his land.