Fifth Amendment (Takings Clause)

558 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 67 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• D. R. Smalley & Sons, Inc. v. The United States
  372 F.2d 505· Ct. Cl.· 1967-02-17 ·cited 30×
  The United States is not liable for damages arising from highway construction contracts where its involvement constituted sovereign acts and there was no privity of contract with the plaintiff.
• Stover v. United States
  332 F.2d 204· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-07 ·cited 30×
• Ogden River Water Users' Ass'n v. Weber Basin Water Conservancy
  238 F.2d 936· 10th Cir.· 1956-10-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the suit against federal officers was, in substance, a suit against the United States, which had not consented to be sued, and thus the district court lacked jurisdiction.
• Hillcrest Prop., LLP v. Pasco Cnty.
  915 F.3d 1292· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-13 ·cited 29×·via Takings Claim
  Hillcrest Property, a landowner in Pasco County, Florida, challenged the county's application of an ordinance requiring dedication of land as a condition of development approval, claiming the county violated its substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The E
• Duncan E. MacKenzie v. City OF Rockledge
  920 F.2d 1554· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff had no constitutionally protected property interest in a building permit for a marina, and therefore his due process claim failed. The court also found no equal protection or unconstitutional taking violations.
• W. Mining Council v. Watt
  643 F.2d 618· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-23 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge most provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act due to insufficient allegations of actual or threatened injury, and that the remaining claims lacked merit.
• Sederquist v. City OF Tiburon
  590 F.2d 278· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the inverse condemnation action.
• Landmark Land Co. OF Okla., Inc. v. R.E. "Buck" Buchanan
  874 F.2d 717· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the takings, substantive due process, and equal protection claims were not ripe for review because the city had not reached a final decision regarding the property's development, and that procedural due process requirements were satisfied by the available hear
• SDJ, Inc. v. The City OF Houston
  837 F.2d 1268· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the City of Houston's ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses, as applied to topless bars, is constitutional under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and does not conflict with state law.
• Union OIL Co. OF Cal. v. The Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton
  512 F.2d 743· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an indefinite suspension of a lessee's right to install a drilling platform, based on environmental concerns, could constitute a taking of property requiring compensation, and thus may be beyond the Secretary's statutory authority if not properly justified and
• ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz
  77 So. 3d 1220· Fla.· 2011-11-03 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Nollan/Dolan exactions test applies only to land-use permit conditions requiring dedication of real property to public use when a permit is actually issued. The court reversed the Fifth District's expansion of exactions doctrine to non-land
• Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  810 F.2d 1168· D.C. Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately consider Jersey Central's severe financial plight and the implications of the "used and useful" principle in the context of a massive, failed investment.
• Taylor v. Vill. OF N. Palm Beach
  659 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-08-16 ·cited 26×
  A Florida landowner challenged the Village of North Palm Beach's 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a taking of her property (Little Munyon Island) when it changed the land use designation from limited commercial to conservation/open space. The court affirmed that the plan did n
• Bateson v. Geisse
  857 F.2d 1300· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-20 ·cited 26×
  The City Council's arbitrary withholding of a building permit, after all requirements were met, violated the developer's substantive due process rights and constituted official policy, making the City and council members liable. The court also affirmed the dismissal of procedural
• Pace Res., Inc. v. Shrewsbury Twp.
  808 F.2d 1023· 3d Cir.· 1987-01-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Pace's allegations did not state a claim for a taking under the Fifth Amendment or a violation of substantive due process, and that no additional federal relief was available.
• Rymer v. Douglas Cnty.
  764 F.2d 796· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a Fifth Amendment taking, substantive due process violation, or procedural due process violation.
• Gordon v. State
  608 So. 2d 800· Fla.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 25×
  Subsection 768.73(2)(b), Florida Statutes, requiring 60 percent of punitive damages awards to be paid to the state, is constitutional because punitive damages are not a property right protected from legislative modification, and the statute bears a rational relationship to legiti
• Centel Cable Television Co. OF Fla. v. Thos. J. White Dev. Corp.
  902 F.2d 905· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-05 ·cited 25×
  Cable companies have an implied right of action under section 621(a) of the Cable Act against private developers who block construction of cable systems through easements dedicated to compatible uses, and this enforcement does not violate the fifth amendment takings clause.
• Ahrensfeld v. Stephens
  528 F.2d 193· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-23 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the eminent domain proceedings, affirming the dismissal of the federal action.
• Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff
  35 So. 3d 84· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-05-12 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services appealed a judgment awarding over 50,000 citrus tree owners $8 million in just compensation for healthy trees destroyed under its citrus canker eradication program. The court affirmed, holding that the government's destr
• Walton Cnty. v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.
  998 So. 2d 1102· Fla.· 2008-09-29 ·cited 24×·via Takings Claim
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Beach and Shore Preservation Act against a facial constitutional challenge, holding that the statute does not unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights when restoring critically eroded public beaches. The Court balanced publi
• GET Away Club, Inc. v. Vic Coleman
  969 F.2d 664· 8th Cir.· 1992-07-13 ·cited 24×
  The troopers are entitled to qualified immunity on the claim for civil damages because the law regarding Fifth Amendment takings was not clearly established at the time of their actions. However, a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding the frequency and location of the
• Furey v. City OF Sacramento
  780 F.2d 1448· 9th Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 24×
  A sewer assessment constitutes a voluntary private investment, not a government taking, when initiated by landowners and facilitated by government without substantial inducement, even if subsequent zoning prevents the landowner from benefiting from the improvement.
• Mitchell v. The United States
  664 F.2d 265· Ct. Cl.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that claims for improper deductions from timber sales proceeds and failure to invest tribal funds may fall within the Tucker Act's consent to suit, but claims for "mismanagement" like failure to plan or minimize erosion do not. The court also noted that fifth amend
• Westside Prop. Owners v. Schlesinger
  597 F.2d 1214· 9th Cir.· 1979-05-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Air Force's Environmental Impact Statement for F-15 aircraft at Luke AFB was sufficient, the Fifth Amendment taking claim was barred by sovereign immunity, and the FAA lacked jurisdiction to regulate military aircraft noise.
• Griffin v. United States
  537 F.2d 1130· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1976-06-08 ·cited 24×
  Royalty owners subject to the two-tier crude oil pricing system did not have their property taken for public use for which they may recover compensation from the United States.
• Marine ONE, Inc. v. Manatee Cnty.
  877 F.2d 892· 11th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 23×
  The court held that plaintiffs did not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in the rescinded permits under Florida law, as state law does not recognize a property right in a permit itself, only a potential right to pursue equitable estoppel.
• In re Quanta Res. Corp. v. Quanta Res. Corp.
  739 F.2d 912· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 23×
  The court held that a trustee may abandon burdensome property under 11 U.S.C. § 554, even if it violates state environmental laws, to avoid constitutional taking clause issues and because state laws do not compel creditors to bear cleanup costs.
• Lost Tree Vill. Corp. v. City OF Vero Beach & the Town of Indian River Shores
  838 So. 2d 561· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-11-13 ·cited 22×·via Takings Claim
  Lost Tree Village Corporation appeals the dismissal of its inverse condemnation claims against the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores, alleging the municipalities' combined regulations precluded all economically viable use of its island property. The court held th
• Amen v. City OF Dearborn
  718 F.2d 789· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court properly found subject-matter jurisdiction under the amended 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the City's conduct constituted a taking of private property without just compensation, but reversed the finding that acquisitions lacked a public purpose.
• Sioux Nation of Indians v. The United States
  601 F.2d 1157· Ct. Cl.· 1979-06-13 ·cited 22×
  The court's opinion, in part, misinterprets Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, which does not establish that the acquisition of the Black Hills by the 1877 Act was not a taking requiring just compensation.
• Bourgeois v. The United States
  545 F.2d 727· Ct. Cl.· 1976-11-17 ·cited 22×
  When the government patents shoreland along non-navigable waters with ambiguous intent regarding islands, federal common law dictates that title to the island passes to the patentee according to state law.
• Naegele Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City OF Durham
  844 F.2d 172· 4th Cir.· 1988-04-15 ·cited 21×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the First Amendment claim, finding the ordinance constitutional, but vacated the dismissal of the Fifth Amendment takings claim, remanding for further factual development.
• In re Metmor Fin. v. Metmor Fin., Inc.
  819 F.2d 446· 4th Cir.· 1987-05-20 ·cited 21×
  An innocent lienor is entitled to post-seizure interest on its mortgage from the date of seizure until the property is sold, as the government's interest is no greater than that of the wrongdoer.
• Cabrera v. Municipality OF Bayamon
  562 F.2d 91· 1st Cir.· 1977-09-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to order the relocation of the landfill or condemnation of plaintiffs' property, and that substantial economic loss alone does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking.
• Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Vill. OF Cedarhurst
  238 F.2d 812· 2d Cir.· 1956-12-13 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the federal government has preempted the field of air traffic regulation, including altitudes below 1,000 feet, and that the delegation of authority to set 'safe altitudes' was constitutional.
• Christy v. Hodel
  857 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Endangered Species Act and its regulations do not unconstitutionally deprive plaintiffs of property without due process or equal protection, nor do they constitute a taking without just compensation.
• Golden Pac. Bancorp v. Clarke
  837 F.2d 509· D.C. Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the appellant's claim for damages against the government is barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, as the Comptroller's actions involved policy judgments.
• Devines v. Maier
  728 F.2d 876· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 20×·via Fifth Amendment Violation (Taking Without Just Compensation)
  The court held that the City of Milwaukee's order to temporarily vacate an uninhabitable dwelling does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, reversing its prior ruling in Devines I.
• Lehigh & NEW England Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  540 F.2d 71· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the ICC's regulations denying rent to a railroad for the use of its lines by a directed carrier during unprofitable operations are a valid exercise of the ICC's authority and do not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking requiring compensation.
• W. States Meat Packers Ass'n, Inc. v. Dunlop
  482 F.2d 1401· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1973-09-01 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the denial of preliminary injunctive relief and upheld the constitutional validity of the beef price freeze, finding no taking without just compensation, denial of due process, or unconstitutional discrimination.
• Konecny v. United States & Red Lake Drainage & Conservancy Dist.
  388 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1967-12-12 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under both the Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act were properly dismissed, the former due to the discretionary function exception and the latter due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
• Alfonso v. Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. & Najeeb Halaby
  308 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1962-10-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of damage did not meet the jurisdictional amount required for federal court, and thus the lower court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• United States v. ONE (1) 1979 Cadillac Coupe de Ville VIN 6D4799266999 Together With All Items Contained Therein
  833 F.2d 994· Fed. Cir.· 1987-11-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the government is not liable for depreciation of a vehicle seized for forfeiture when the forfeiture action ultimately fails, as neither the forfeiture statute nor the Takings Clause provides a basis for such a claim.
• Abdul Muhammad Samaad v. City OF Dallas
  940 F.2d 925· 5th Cir.· 1991-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a Rule 54(b) judgment was potentially available, the takings claim was unripe because state remedies were not exhausted, and no constitutional taking occurred, affirming summary judgment on that claim.
• Educ. Assistance Corp. v. Lauro F. Cavazos
  902 F.2d 617· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Secretary's denial of EAC's waiver request was not arbitrary or capricious, and the 1987 amendments to the Higher Education Act did not violate the fifth amendment by requiring EAC to transfer excess cash reserves.
• Wash. State Dep't OF Game v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  829 F.2d 877· 9th Cir.· 1987-10-06 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Interstate Commerce Commission's interpretation of the National Trails System Act, requiring voluntary agreements for rail-to-trail conversions, is a permissible construction of an ambiguous statute.
• Aguirre v. S.S. Sohio Intrepid
  801 F.2d 1185· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-09 ·cited 18×
  The appeal is dismissed because the seamen's claim for penalty wages is moot and nonjusticiable due to a retroactive statutory amendment that extinguished the underlying claim.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. ONE 25
  766 F.2d 685· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that submitting the issue of property access to the jury in an eminent domain case was an error, as it is a legal question for the judge to determine.
• Hybud Equip. Corp. v. City OF Akron
  654 F.2d 1187· 6th Cir.· 1981-07-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the City of Akron's ordinance creating a monopoly for its energy recycling plant, requiring collectors to deposit waste there, and appropriating the value of recyclables, did not violate the federal antitrust laws, the takings clause, the due process clause, o