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

• Johnson v. The United States
  479 F.2d 1383· Ct. Cl.· 1973-06-20 ·cited 10×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  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
• Rivera v. R. Cobian Chinea & Co., Inc.
  181 F.2d 974· 1st Cir.· 1950-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Puerto Rico Reasonable Rents Act's provision assuring tenants stability of tenure, even against a landlord's desire to withdraw property from the rental market, is a valid exercise of legislative power and not an unconstitutional taking without just compen
• ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, Jr.
  5 So. 3d 8· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-01-09 ·cited 9×
  The St. Johns River Water Management District appealed a trial court judgment awarding inverse condemnation damages to a property owner whose permit application was denied based on alleged improper exactions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that exactions claims are cogniza
• Trepanier v. Cnty. OF Volusia
  965 So. 2d 276· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-09-14 ·cited 9×·via Takings Claim
  Beachfront property owners in Volusia County challenged the county's allowance of public vehicular traffic and parking on their platted beach lots, claiming trespass and inverse condemnation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the county on prescr
• Schwarz v. Kogan
  132 F.3d 1387· 11th Cir.· 1998-01-12 ·cited 9×·via Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Violation
  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
• Moore v. City OF Costa Mesa
  886 F.2d 260· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-26 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the conditional variance requiring a property owner to deed a portion of his land to the city was not an unconstitutional taking for which compensation was owed, as it did not deny all or substantially all economically viable use of the property.
• Charles J. Arndt, Inc. v. City OF Birmingham
  748 F.2d 1486· 11th Cir.· 1984-12-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the city's declaration of blight and subsequent actions, including the negotiation of an option to terminate a leasehold interest, did not constitute a taking of property without due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Robert M. & Bettie H. Loving v. Sponaugle, Sr.
  745 F.2d 861· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the Jackson River Segment, based on historic use, is navigable in fact and thus a navigable water of the United States, affirming the Corps of Engineers' determination.
• United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.
  729 F.2d 391· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the amended Corps of Engineers wetlands definition requires present inundation or saturation sufficient to support vegetation, and that Riverside's property did not meet this standard. The court also vacated the declaratory judgment regarding a Corps regulatio
• 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.
• Rosner v. United States
  231 F. Supp. 2d 1202· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that equitable tolling applies to the plaintiffs' claims, making them timely, and that the Administrative Procedure Act waives sovereign immunity for non-monetary relief regarding the international law claim, but the Fifth Amendment claim fails due to extraterritor
• Specialty Malls of Tampa v. City of Tampa
  916 F. Supp. 1222· M.D. Fla.· 1996-02-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims and, alternatively, that the claims failed on the merits, entitling the defendants to summary judgment.
• Est. OF Mary Elizabeth Whitney Tippett v. City OF Miami
  645 So. 2d 533· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-09 ·cited 8×·via Takings Claim
  Landowners challenged the creation of a historic district designation encompassing their property as an unconstitutional taking. The court denied their petition for certiorari, holding that their takings claim was not ripe because they had not sought permits under the ordinance a
• Villas of Lake Jackson, Ltd. v. Leon Cnty.
  796 F. Supp. 1477· N.D. Fla.· 1992-06-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims alleging the denial of all economically viable use of land are not ripe until the landowner seeks approval for development under current regulations and is denied. Claims for just compensation are also not ripe until state remedies are exhausted.
• Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Madigan
  956 F.2d 670· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in invalidating USDA regulations due to a lack of compensation, as the proper remedy for compensation claims lies with the Claims Court, not by enjoining the regulations.
• Curto v. City OF Harper Woods
  954 F.2d 1237· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the plaintiff's claim that the ordinance was an unreasonable means of advancing a legitimate governmental interest, as the record was insufficient to determine if the 'three cars per bay' limit was arbit
• Miller v. Campbell Cnty.
  945 F.2d 348· 10th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe for review and that the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims were adequately addressed by the Just Compensation Clause and available post-deprivation remedies, affirming the district court's grant of summary ju
• John v. Esposito
  939 F.2d 165· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Just Compensation Clause applies even if a regulation is not foolish, and that the "no economically viable use" test is not appropriate for as-applied takings challenges.
• Pinewood Ests. OF Mich. & Philou Assocs., Ltd. v. Barnegat Twp. Leveling Bd.
  898 F.2d 347· 3d Cir.· 1990-03-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state action permanently removing a landlord's right to evict a tenant constitutes a per se taking under Loretto.
• In re Thompson
  867 F.2d 416· 7th Cir.· 1989-02-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the "tools of the trade" exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2)(B) applies to state law exemptions, allowing debtors to avoid liens on farm equipment, even if the equipment has significant value.
• Cable Invs., Inc. v. Woolley
  867 F.2d 151· 3d Cir.· 1989-01-31 ·cited 8×
  The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 does not grant cable operators a statutory right to access the interior of multi-unit dwellings over the owner's objection.
• Chang v. The United States
  859 F.2d 893· Fed. Cir.· 1988-10-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' loss of employment contracts due to U.S. economic sanctions against Libya did not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
• 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.
• Cone v. The State BAR OF Fla.
  819 F.2d 1002· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a client has no constitutionally protected property interest in interest generated by nominal or short-term trust account funds placed in Florida's IOTA program, as such funds could not realistically earn interest net of expenses.
• Bob's Home Serv., Inc. v. Warren Cnty.
  755 F.2d 625· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the case was ripe for review and that while abstention was appropriate, the district court should have retained jurisdiction rather than dismissing the complaint.
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. & Meridian Land & Mineral Co. v. The United States
  752 F.2d 627· Fed. Cir.· 1985-01-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for just compensation under the fifth amendment for a taking of its coal reserves was premature because it had not exhausted its administrative remedies by seeking a permit from the Secretary.
• Loy Ree B. Marlowe Ballam v. United States
  747 F.2d 915· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the erosion damage was not compensable because the waterway was intended to be a public, navigable waterway subject to the navigational servitude, and the damage was caused by wave wash, not direct government action.
• Storer Cable T.V. OF Fla., Inc. v. Summerwinds Apts. Assocs. Ltd.
  451 So. 2d 1034· Fla. 3d DCA· 1984-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the statute and ordinance allowing cable television companies to install equipment on private property without landlord consent constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation.
• Hovsons, Inc. v. The Sec'y OF the Interior OF the United States
  711 F.2d 1208· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal and denied the motion to disqualify counsel, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment on Counts I and II and its abstention on Count III.
• McKAY v. United States
  703 F.2d 464· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-23 ·cited 8×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that neither the doctrine of preemption nor the political question doctrine justifies the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from the operation of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, and that the case should not have been disposed of by summ
• Johnson Cnty. Mem'l Hosp. v. Schweiker
  698 F.2d 1347· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 8×
  Hospitals are not entitled to Medicare reimbursement for costs incurred providing free care under the Hill-Burton Act, as such costs are explicitly excluded by statute.
• Mobay Chem. Corp. v. Anne M. Gorsuch Env't Prot. Agency
  682 F.2d 419· 3d Cir.· 1982-06-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that FIFRA's provisions for use and disclosure of proprietary pesticide data do not constitute an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, but certain EPA regulations were promulgated in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Armijo v. The United States
  663 F.2d 90· Ct. Cl.· 1981-10-21 ·cited 8×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  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.
• United States v. 5.96 Acres OF Land
  593 F.2d 884· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 8×
  Structures built under revocable permits in navigable waters, even if damaged by government projects, do not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment. Exculpatory clauses in such permits are valid.
• Donohoe Constr. Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty. Council & Montgomery Cnty.
  567 F.2d 603· 4th Cir.· 1977-12-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the facts found by the district court were insufficient to support a finding of a de facto taking of private property without just compensation.
• Luedtke v. Cnty. OF Milwaukee
  521 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1975-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a Fourteenth Amendment claim for damages against the county for property "taking" due to airport operations should be retained by the district court pending state inverse condemnation proceedings, but other claims were properly dismissed.
• Watson v. Kenlick Coal Co., Inc.
  498 F.2d 1183· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Watsons' claim of constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 failed because there was neither a constitutional deprivation nor state action. The interpretation of a 'broad form' deed under Kentucky property law did not violate due process or constit
• Kirk v. United States
  451 F.2d 690· 10th Cir.· 1971-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that property damage from high-altitude sonic boom tests does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking and that no express or implied contract existed for compensation under the Tucker Act.
• Katz v. State OF Conn. & Howard S. Ives
  433 F.2d 878· 2d Cir.· 1970-11-05 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding the appellant's federal action was barred by res judicata.
• The Palisades Citizens Ass'n, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Bd.
  420 F.2d 188· D.C. Cir.· 1969-09-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Civil Aeronautics Board's denial of formal intervention to citizens' groups was reasonable, as their interests were adequately represented through informal participation and other parties.
• Choctaw Nation and Chickasaw Nation v. The Atchison
  396 F.2d 578· 10th Cir.· 1968-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the second proviso of the 1906 Act, which vests abandoned railroad easements in abutting landowners, is constitutional and applies to reservoir lands.
• City OF Eufaula v. United States
  313 F.2d 745· 5th Cir.· 1963-01-17 ·cited 8×
  The United States is not liable for the cost of sewage treatment plants required by state authorities due to dam construction, as this is not a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
• Nunnally v. United States
  239 F.2d 521· 4th Cir.· 1956-12-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the government's testing activities, which caused noise, shock, and occasional low aircraft flights, did not constitute a "taking" of the plaintiff's property under the Fifth Amendment.
• Hill v. Suwannee River Water Mgmt. Dist.
  217 So. 3d 1100· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-04-18 ·cited 7×·via Takings Claim
  The Hills appealed summary judgment dismissing their takings claim against the Suwannee River Water Management District on quasi-judicial immunity grounds. The court reversed, holding that the District's actions in draining the Hills' pond pursuant to court orders were not judici
• Sierra Club v. Flowers
  423 F. Supp. 2d 1273· S.D. Fla.· 2006-03-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the agency's decision-making process suffered from substantial deficiencies, resulting in decisions not in accordance with federal environmental laws.
• Hendler v. The United States
  952 F.2d 1364· Fed. Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 7×
  The dismissal sanction was improvidently granted and is reversed; the partial summary judgment regarding the State of California's actions is also reversed; and judgment is ordered for plaintiffs on the physical occupation taking claim.
• Boone v. United States
  944 F.2d 1489· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Puko'o Lagoon was not subject to the federal navigational servitude because it was not navigable in fact in its natural state, and the destruction of the fishpond wall did not revive a dormant servitude for takings clause purposes.
• Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes
  771 F. Supp. 1557· S.D. Fla.· 1991-08-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the plaintiff's development plan, constituting a violation of substantive due process, and that the plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property interest.
• Allied-General Nuclear Servs. v. The United States
  839 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the claimant had no legally protected property right to operate the plant that could be the subject of a Fifth Amendment taking, as the government's action was to prevent injury to national security.
• State OF Minn. By Joseph N. Alexander v. Block
  660 F.2d 1240· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 7×·via Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Violation
  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