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

• Alachua Land Invs., LLC v. City OF Gainesville
  107 So. 3d 1154· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-01-31 ·cited 6×
  Alachua Land Investors (ALI) appealed a trial court judgment dismissing its inverse condemnation action against the City of Gainesville on ripeness grounds. The court held that ALI's takings claim was not yet ripe because ALI failed to submit a meaningful application to the City
• Bradsheer v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles
  20 So. 3d 915· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-09-25 ·cited 6×
  This appeal addresses whether the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles acted unlawfully when it required drivers convicted of DUI before July 1, 2005 to install ignition interlock devices, even though the department lacked statutory authority to do so prior to
• ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, Jr.
  861 So. 2d 1267· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The St. Johns River Water Management District appealed a trial court judgment finding that the District's denial of a permit constituted an unreasonable exercise of police power amounting to inverse condemnation. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction,
• The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Sarasota Cnty. v. Webber
  658 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-06-30 ·cited 6×·via Takings Claim
  The Board of County Commissioners denied a variance to construct on coastal property subject to a setback ordinance. The circuit court quashed the denial, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the Board properly reconsidered its initial approval and that the circuit cour
• Levald, Inc. v. City OF Palm Desert
  998 F.2d 680· 9th Cir.· 1993-07-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Levald's facial takings claim is barred by the statute of limitations, and its as-applied takings claim is not ripe because Levald failed to seek compensation in state court. The substantive due process claim was properly dismissed.
• McANDREWS v. Fleet Bank OF Mass., N.A.
  989 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1993-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that applying FIRREA to enforce a lease despite an ipso facto clause is a prospective application of the statute and does not constitute an unconstitutional taking.
• Unisys Fin. Corp. v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for Concordia Fed. Bank for Sav.
  979 F.2d 609· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-12 ·cited 6×
  A perfected security interest is unenforceable if the underlying claim it secures has been extinguished by statute.
• Lockary v. Kayfetz
  974 F.2d 1166· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a district court may use its inherent power to sanction a legal foundation for misconduct, even if not covered by Rule 11 or § 1927, and affirmed sanctions for failure to plead with specificity and for frivolous antitrust claims. It reversed sanctions for the
• Clifton v. Schafer
  969 F.2d 278· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a temporary, random, and unauthorized deprivation of welfare benefits, for which an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists, does not violate due process under § 1983, and that the cited federal regulation does not create a right enforceable under § 1983.
• Kraebel v. NEW York City Dep't OF Hous. Pres. & Dev.
  959 F.2d 395· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of J51 claims due to the Tax Injunction Act but reversed and remanded the due process claim regarding SCRIE reimbursements, finding a property interest was established.
• Hill v. Ibarra
  954 F.2d 1516· 10th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a former AFDC recipient has no enforceable right to have the state agency prioritize collection and distribution of current child support payments if she did not authorize the agency to collect such payments after her benefits ceased.
• Azul Pacifico v. City OF LOS Angeles
  948 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the city's vacancy control ordinance effected a physical taking of mobile home park owners' property without just compensation, but the plaintiff's § 1983 claim was time-barred.
• McDOUGAL v. Cnty. OF Imperial
  942 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that California's one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3). The court reversed dismissal of the inverse condemnation claim, finding that a legitimate regulatory purpose do
• Whitney Benefits, Inc. v. The United States
  926 F.2d 1169· Fed. Cir.· 1991-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the summary judgment for the second attorney, holding that the statute of limitations for legal malpractice against the first attorney had not yet run when the second attorney was sued for failing to inform the client of the cause of action.
• Jacobs Wind Elec. Co., Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  919 F.2d 726· Fed. Cir.· 1990-11-20 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars patent infringement suits against a state in federal court, even when brought by a resident of that state.
• Lakeview Dev. Corp. v. City OF S. Lake Tahoe
  915 F.2d 1290· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 6×
  A developer's vested right to complete a project is lost if they unreasonably delay proceeding with development after obtaining preliminary permits, even if the project was initially conceived as unitary.
• In re Ariz. Appetito's Stores, Inc. v. Paradise Vill. Inv. Co.
  893 F.2d 216· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-03 ·cited 6×
  A debtor's motion to reject a nonresidential real property lease within the 60-day period under 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4) does not prevent the lease from being automatically deemed rejected if no motion to assume or extend the time is filed within that period.
• Grimesy v. Huff
  876 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a statutory amendment prohibiting grandparent deeming and made retroactive by Congress foreclosed plaintiffs' claims for retroactive benefits and interest, as the amendment's language and intent were to prevent such claims.
• Cathelina Antolok v. United States
  873 F.2d 369· D.C. Cir.· 1989-04-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the statutory provisions depriving federal courts of jurisdiction over the underlying tort suit are contingent on the validity of the espousal agreement, and the challenge to the espousal agreement is suitable for judicial resolution.
• Anchor Pointe Boat-A-Minium Ass'n, Inc. v. Vern Meinke
  860 F.2d 215· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Anchor Pointe's Fifth Amendment taking claim because equitable relief is not available for an authorized taking, and claims exceeding $10,000 must be brought in the U.S. Claims Court under the Tucker Act.
• T.J. Fountain, Jr. v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  849 F.2d 1412· 11th Cir.· 1988-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Fountain's federal inverse condemnation claims were precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the issue of whether a 'taking' occurred was actually litigated and determined in the prior state court proceedings.
• Clifford Y.C. LAI and Victoria L. Lai v. City & Cnty. OF Honolulu
  841 F.2d 301· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 6×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that the Lais' inverse condemnation claim was not ripe because they failed to seek a variance from the zoning ordinance and pursue state compensation procedures.
• United States v. 22.80 Acres OF Land
  839 F.2d 1362· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court was not restricted to a particular method in determining fair market value for condemned material and that its reliance on expert testimony was not clearly erroneous.
• Galloway Farms, Inc. v. The United States
  834 F.2d 998· Fed. Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 6×
• Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe and Oglala Sioux Tribe v. The United States
  806 F.2d 1046· Fed. Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 6×
  The Claims Court erred by entering a judgment based on an unaccepted settlement offer, as it lacked the authority to impose a settlement upon parties who had not agreed to it and failed to make required factual findings.
• Mountain States Legal Found. v. Hodel
  799 F.2d 1423· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the case should be remanded for fact-finding to determine if the government's failure to remove wild horses from private land constitutes a Fifth Amendment taking.
• Yachts Am., Inc. v. The United States
  779 F.2d 656· Fed. Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the Claims Court's denial of Yachts America's claims for compensation, finding no error in the prior decisions regarding ownership, business taking, leasehold taking, implied contract, inverse condemnation, or the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.
• Wash. Water Power Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  775 F.2d 305· D.C. Cir.· 1985-10-18 ·cited 6×
  The Federal Power Act applies to the dam because the river is navigable, the project is on a U.S. reservation, and it affects interstate commerce, and the 1905 Act did not grant the right to build a dam, thus FERC can require a license.
• Outboard Marine Corp. v. Thomas
  773 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the EPA lacked statutory authority under CERCLA to obtain an administrative warrant for preliminary design and surveying activities on private property when no emergency existed.
• Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  768 F.2d 1500· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-02 ·cited 6×
  The court's opinion on rehearing correctly applies the 'end result' test to rate orders, considering both consumer and investor interests.
• Mears v. The Town OF Oxford
  762 F.2d 368· 4th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's claims based on res judicata and failure to prosecute, affirming the dismissal of the entire complaint.
• Irving v. Clark
  758 F.2d 1260· 8th Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 25 U.S.C. § 2206, which causes de minimis interests in allotted Indian lands to escheat to the tribe, violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause by depriving original allottees of vested property rights without just compensation.
• Truckee-Carson Irrigation Dist. v. Sec'y OF Dep't OF Interior
  742 F.2d 527· 9th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that TCID's claim of a property right in water was unfounded, and the Secretary properly terminated its contract for violating operating criteria, without violating due process.
• Mountain States Legal Found. v. Clark
  740 F.2d 792· 10th Cir.· 1984-07-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of damages against the Secretary for the taking of forage is affirmed, but the judgment is reversed for a factual determination on whether forage was taken due to the continued failure to manage horses and permitting their use of private lands.
• Sadowsky v. City OF NEW York
  732 F.2d 312· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims regarding the recordation requirement of the SRO renovation law.
• Hamilton Bank OF Johnson City v. Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n
  729 F.2d 402· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the effects of the defendants' actions did not constitute a taking requiring compensation, and even a temporary deprivation of investment-backed expectations does not establish an entitlement to damages.
• Kohl Indus. Park Co. (a Partnership) v. The Cnty. OF Rockland
  710 F.2d 895· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-07 ·cited 6×
  The settlement agreement cannot be enforced because it requires the condemning authority to take more property than the legislature deemed necessary, and the plaintiff's claim of a de facto taking is meritless.
• Behring Int'l, Inc. v. Imperial Iranian AIR Force & Iran Aircraft Indus.
  699 F.2d 657· 3d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Behring's claims outstanding as of January 19, 1981, were suspended by the Algerian Declarations and Executive Order and must be presented to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, and that the Iranian defendants' appeal was untimely.
• In re Gifford
  669 F.2d 468· 7th Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 6×
  Section 522(f)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to security interests acquired before its enactment date, as retroactive application would raise significant constitutional questions under the Fifth Amendment's taking clause.
• United States & United States Postal Serv. v. City OF Pittsburg
  661 F.2d 783· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-16 ·cited 6×
  A municipal ordinance requiring postal carriers to obtain express consent before crossing lawns is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause as it obstructs the federal objective of efficient mail delivery.
• Tran QUI Than v. Regan
  658 F.2d 1296· 9th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Secretary's decision to deny the license was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and that the blocking of assets did not constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate equal protection. The court affirmed in part and remanded for clarification
• In re Boston & Me. Corp.
  634 F.2d 1359· 1st Cir.· 1980-10-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that per diem car hire claims do not automatically receive priority in railroad reorganizations and that the 'Six Months Rule' requires specific conditions to be met, which were not satisfied in this case. The court also rejected a constitutional claim that denying
• McCULLOCH GAS Processing Corp. v. Canadian Hidrogas Res., Ltd.
  577 F.2d 712· Temp. Emer. Ct. App.· 1978-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court clarifies that 'taking' claims under the Economic Stabilization Act are actionable for damages, consistent with prior precedent.
• Huerta v. The United States
  548 F.2d 343· Ct. Cl.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the essential facts required for his claims of breach of contract and uncompensated taking, thus he is not entitled to recover.
• Cumberland Mineral Co. v. The United States
  513 F.2d 1399· Ct. Cl.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would hold that sandstone and clay are minerals reserved under the deed, but their non-commercial nature should affect the quantum of recovery, not entitlement.
• Camacho v. The United States
  494 F.2d 1363· Ct. Cl.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 6×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  The Court of Claims held that the plaintiffs' petition for just compensation was barred by the statute of limitations, as the claims accrued more than six years before the suit was filed.
• The United States v. The Cherokee Nation
  474 F.2d 628· Ct. Cl.· 1973-02-16 ·cited 6×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  The court held that the valuation date for the ceded Cherokee land is June 14, 1883, the date of formal conveyance, and that the government is entitled to an offset for gratuitous interest paid on the compensation amount.
• The Nat'l Bd. OF the Young Men's Christian Ass'ns v. The United States
  396 F.2d 467· Ct. Cl.· 1968-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government's use of private buildings as a place of refuge and defense for troops, which led to enemy attack and destruction, constituted a compensable taking.
• The Cuban Truck & Equip. Co. v. The United States
  333 F.2d 873· Ct. Cl.· 1964-06-12 ·cited 6×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claim for a taking, as the taking occurred by mid-May 1951, making the suit filed in May 1957 untimely. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove it had acquired title to the trucks under German l
• Laycock v. United States
  230 F.2d 848· 9th Cir.· 1956-03-06 ·cited 6×·via Fifth Amendment Violation (Taking Without Just Compensation)
  The court held that consent to sue the United States regarding claims arising from gold acquisition and involving the regulation of money's value was withdrawn by statute, thus divesting the court of jurisdiction.