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

• In re Boston & Me. Corp.
  596 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1979-04-05 ·cited 18×
  The New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission lacked jurisdiction to prevent the railroad trustees from dismantling tracks on abandoned lines, as federal law preempts state authority over such matters. The reorganization court properly adjudicated title to the track materials as
• Miller v. United States
  583 F.2d 857· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Millers' claim under the Boundary Waters Treaty was properly dismissed, but their Fifth Amendment taking claim should be remanded for fact-finding on whether the US actions constituted a direct appropriation. The Federal Tort Claims Act claim for negligent
• Basin, Inc. v. Fed. Energy Admin. & Frank Zarb
  552 F.2d 931· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1977-03-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the FEA's supplier-purchaser freeze rule (10 C.F.R. § 211.63) should be upheld if it has any rational basis, and that the district court erred by not applying this standard.
• Ind. Harbor Belt R.R. Co. v. United States
  510 F.2d 644· 7th Cir.· 1975-02-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in reviewing the Interstate Commerce Commission's tariff interpretation and in considering issues of discrimination not first decided by the Commission.
• Ashland OIL, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
  554 F.2d 381· 10th Cir.· 1975-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court's use of a work-back method to determine the value of helium was appropriate when market value could not be established, but remanded for further findings on specific expense elements.
• Maurice M. Sayre in Bankr. of the Liberty Mortg. Corp. v. The City OF Cleveland
  493 F.2d 64· 6th Cir.· 1974-03-14 ·cited 18×
  A de facto taking of property due to urban renewal requires more than just devaluation; it necessitates a physical invasion, damage, restraint, or a clear intent by the city to appropriate the specific property.
• United States v. Pittman
  449 F.2d 623· 7th Cir.· 1971-09-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the government's actions, including taking a quitclaim deed, managing the property, collecting rent, and levying on tenants, constituted an effective levy and seizure of the taxpayer's property, entitling the taxpayer to credit for its value.
• Batten v. United States
  306 F.2d 580· 10th Cir.· 1962-07-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that noise, vibration, and smoke from military jet operations, without physical invasion of property or deprivation of substantially all use, do not constitute a taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment for which compensation is required under the Tucke
• Major C. Todd, Jr. v. United States
  292 F.2d 841· Ct. Cl.· 1961-07-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that plaintiffs have an equitable but not legal claim against the United States for $23,240 due to the taking of their fishing rights, but the legal claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
• Pondella Hall FOR Hire, Inc. v. Lawson Lamar
  866 So. 2d 719· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-01-02 ·cited 17×·via Takings Claim
  Pondella Hall for Hire appeals dismissal of its counterclaims for damages arising from a civil forfeiture action. The court affirms dismissal of wrongful injunction and forfeiture damage claims but reverses dismissal of takings claims regarding personal property, remanding for de
• Fla. Rock Indus., Inc. v. The United States
  791 F.2d 893· Fed. Cir.· 1986-05-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the proposed mining would not pollute was erroneous and required vacating the judgment, as this finding undermined the Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction and the basis for the taking claim. The court also denied the cross-appe
• Town OF Jupiter v. Alexander
  747 So. 2d 395· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-09-16 ·cited 16×·via Takings Claim
  This inverse condemnation appeal concerns whether a temporary regulatory taking occurred when a municipality delayed development approval for two years. The court held that the owner's two non-contiguous parcels must be treated as a single integrated tract for takings analysis, a
• In re Amendments TO Rules Regulating THE Fla. Bar-1-3.1(a) & Rules OF Jud. Administration-2.065 (Legal AID)
  573 So. 2d 800· Fla.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that all members of The Florida Bar have a professional obligation to provide legal services to indigent clients when appointed by a court, grounded in the common law tradition and lawyers' oath as officers of the court. The Court declined to amend
• Wheeler v. City OF Pleasant Grove
  896 F.2d 1347· 11th Cir.· 1990-03-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in its calculation of damages for a temporary regulatory taking, and awarded a specific amount based on the market rate return on the lost development value.
• Owen v. The United States
  851 F.2d 1404· Fed. Cir.· 1988-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The navigational servitude does not provide a blanket exception to the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause for erosion damage to land outside the stream bed caused by government navigation improvements.
• Crawford v. LA Boucherie Bernard Ltd.
  815 F.2d 117· D.C. Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 16×
  ERISA authorizes a court to offset a party's interest in a plan against a judgment based on that party's breaches of fiduciary duty to the same plan, notwithstanding the statute's anti-alienation provisions.
• Minn. Ass'n OF Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minn. Dep't OF Pub. Welf. & Leonard W. Levine
  742 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 16×·via Takings Claim
  The Court held that the part of the statute retroactively requiring nursing homes to refund collected charges exceeding an allowable rate differential unconstitutionally impairs contracts. However, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of the prospective rate limitations impos
• Citadel Corp. v. Puerto RICO Hwy. Auth.
  695 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-22 ·cited 16×
  Damage actions against governmental entities for land use policies are not cognizable in federal court, even if the regulation constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
• Barbian v. Constantine Panagis & the City of Milwaukee
  694 F.2d 476· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to interview jurors, holding that the information presented did not establish a sufficient basis to question the verdict's integrity.
• Gulf Water Benefaction Co. v. The Pub. Util. Comm'n OF Tex. & the State of Tex.
  674 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction over state utility rate-making disputes, and that the Chapter XI petition was appropriately dismissed due to lack of prosecution and prospect of arrangement.
• Connolly v. Holder
  673 F.2d 1110· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-09 ·cited 16×
  A summary denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus does not establish the law of the case, and the constitutional challenges to ERISA's premium and liability provisions raise substantial constitutional questions requiring a three-judge court.
• Mapco Inc. v. Carter
  573 F.2d 1268· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1978-03-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there is no constitutional right under the Ninth Amendment to trust the federal government or rely on the integrity of its pronouncements, and therefore, the price rollback did not violate such a right.
• Anne E. Miles v. Dist. OF Columbia
  510 F.2d 188· D.C. Cir.· 1975-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the District of Columbia failed to provide the property owner with constitutionally adequate notice before demolishing her buildings, thus violating due process and entitling her to just compensation.
• United States v. 422
  445 F.2d 1180· 9th Cir.· 1971-07-21 ·cited 16×
  The United States can use submerged land for navigational purposes without compensating the owner, and any claim for compensation is barred by the Tucker Act's six-year statute of limitations if not brought within that period.
• J. J. Henry Co., Inc. v. The United States
  411 F.2d 1246· Ct. Cl.· 1969-06-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for Fifth Amendment 'taking' of plans and for equitable lien against retained funds were without merit.
• The Swan Lake Hunting Club & the State of Miss. v. United States
  381 F.2d 238· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, when read with 40 U.S.C.A. § 257, authorizes condemnation of land for migratory bird refuges, and that Mississippi's legislative and gubernatorial consent was sufficient for the taking of hunting rights.
• Borough OF Ford City v. United States
  345 F.2d 645· 3d Cir.· 1965-04-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its determination of the ordinary high-water mark by applying an incorrect legal standard, and therefore, the government was not liable for damages to the plaintiff's sewer system.
• Sioux Tribe of Indians of the Lower Brule Reservation v. The United States
  315 F.2d 378· Ct. Cl.· 1963-04-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the erroneous survey and subsequent sale of plaintiff's lands constituted a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and that certain expenditures could be offset against the award.
• Jensen v. The United States
  305 F.2d 444· Ct. Cl.· 1962-07-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for just compensation for avigation easements were not barred by the statute of limitations, as the taking occurred within the six-year period preceding the filing of the petitions. The court also affirmed the Commissioner's valuation of
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Stowe Spinning Co.
  165 F.2d 609· 4th Cir.· 1947-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that compelling employers to allow union use of private facilities for organizing, when no other public space is available, constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property and violates the employer's property rights. However, the court found substantial evidence
• In re Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.
  117 F.2d 976· 3d Cir.· 1941-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a mortgage trustee is not entitled to sequester income from pledged securities during a debtor's reorganization proceeding, even upon default, if doing so would impede the reorganization process.
• Golf Club OF Plantation, Inc. v. City OF Plantation
  717 So. 2d 166· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-09-16 ·cited 15×·via Takings Claim
  Golf Club of Plantation appealed the trial court's dismissal of its takings claims against the City of Plantation, which had denied permits for residential development and course improvements citing open-space preservation policies. The appellate court reversed the dismissals of
• DEL Monte Dunes AT Monterey, Ltd. v. City OF Monterey
  920 F.2d 1496· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the regulatory takings claim is ripe for review because the property owners made substantial efforts to comply with the City's conditions, and further applications would be futile due to the City's arbitrary and contradictory actions.
• Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  519 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-01-29 ·cited 15×
  Section 337.241(2)–(3) of the Florida Statutes is constitutional because, although the administrative remedy in subsection (3) may be inadequate in individual cases, the Fifth Amendment and the Florida Constitution guarantee landowners a fundamental right to pursue inverse condem
• Douglass G. Whitney, M.D. v. Heckler
  780 F.2d 963· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-22 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the fee freeze and incentive provisions of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 do not violate substantive due process or constitute a bill of attainder.
• Nemmers v. City OF Dubuque
  764 F.2d 502· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying all damages for the temporary taking of land, and that expert witness fees were properly awarded.
• Chas. T. Main Int'l, Inc. v. Khuzestan Water & Power Auth.
  651 F.2d 800· 1st Cir.· 1981-05-22 ·cited 15×
  The court found that the President had adequate Congressional authority under IEEPA to settle the claim, making the question of inherent Article II power unnecessary.
• Franklin v. United States
  101 F.2d 459· 6th Cir.· 1939-01-20 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the allegations in the appellants' petitions, if true, stated a good cause of action for an unlawful taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. The lower court erred in sustaining the demurrers, and the judgment should be reversed.
• Buending v. Town of Redington Beach
  10 F.4th 1125· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Town was entitled to raise customary use as an affirmative defense under Fla. Stat. § 163.035(4) and that genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on the issue of customary use. The court also vacated the First Amendment retaliation cla
• FAR W. Fed. Bank v. Dir., Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  951 F.2d 1093· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) superseded inconsistent provisions in the prior conversion agreement between Far West Federal Bank and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board regarding capital requirements and loan limits.
• Midnight Sessions, Ltd. v. City OF Philadelphia
  945 F.2d 667· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the City should have been granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the takings and procedural due process claims, and on Down South's substantive due process claim, but After Midnight's substantive due process claim requires a new trial.
• Peterson v. United States Dep't OF the Interior
  899 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Congress has the power to amend federal reclamation law, including provisions affecting subsidized water contracts, and that the Reclamation Reform Act's 'hammer clause' does not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process or taking clauses.
• In re William and Vesta Prines v. Prines
  867 F.2d 478· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the quarterly fee provision of the Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 applies to pending cases in districts participating in the United States Trustee Pilot Program, and that this application is constitutional.
• Cassettari v. Cnty. OF Nev.
  824 F.2d 735· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-10 ·cited 14×
  A Fifth Amendment taking claim is premature until state compensation procedures have been utilized and denied. A Section 1983 claim requires a deprivation of a federal right, which does not occur until just compensation is denied after exhausting state remedies.
• Price v. City OF Junction
  711 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the city's "junk car" ordinance is a constitutional exercise of police power and does not violate due process, equal protection, or the takings clause.
• United States v. 119.67 Acres OF Land
  663 F.2d 1328· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-18 ·cited 14×
  The United States, through its authorized agencies and after extensive negotiation and approval, compromised its navigational servitude by entering into a stipulated agreement with Chevron, and cannot later set aside this agreement based on a claimed lack of authority.
• Puig v. Standard Dredging Corp. & Travelers Ins. Co.
  599 F.2d 467· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that applying the 1972 amendment to award death benefits for a death occurring after the amendment's effective date, even if the injury occurred prior, is a prospective application and does not violate the Fifth Amendment. The court also found the maritime nexus ar
• NBH Land Co. v. The United States
  576 F.2d 317· Ct. Cl.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 14×
  Actions of defendant's officials in proposing land acquisition and opposing local zoning changes did not constitute a taking under the law of eminent domain.
• Harris v. United States
  205 F.2d 765· 10th Cir.· 1953-07-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a single, isolated, and unintentional act causing damage to private property does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, but rather a tort for which the government is only consensually liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• CNL Resort Hotel, L.P. v. City OF Doral
  991 So. 2d 417· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-09-24 ·cited 13×
  CNL Resort Hotel challenged the City of Doral's comprehensive development plan on grounds that it violated Florida law by failing to adequately consider private property rights. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an administrative law judge's dismissal of CNL's claims,