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

• Gregorio P. Castro v. The United States
  500 F.2d 436· Ct. Cl.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 4×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to just compensation for the use and occupancy of his land, but not for the destruction of coconut trees during wartime military operations. The statute of limitations did not bar the claim due to the continuous nature of the taking.
• United States v. N. Colo. Water Conservancy Dist.
  449 F.2d 1· 10th Cir.· 1971-09-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the landowner's vested right to natural irrigation, taken for public use by the government's project, required just compensation under the Fifth Amendment and the Tucker Act.
• Gardner v. United States
  446 F.2d 1195· 2d Cir.· 1971-07-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States has not consented to be sued for the torts alleged in the counterclaim, and constitutional amendments do not independently waive sovereign immunity for such claims.
• Nelms v. Laird
  442 F.2d 1163· 4th Cir.· 1971-05-28 ·cited 4×
  The discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act does not shield the Air Force from liability for damage caused by sonic booms when a regulation mandates protection and restitution for such damage.
• Arpod J. Artwohl v. The United States
  434 F.2d 1319· Ct. Cl.· 1970-12-11 ·cited 4×·via Claim For Just Compensation Under The Fifth Amendment
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation for excess profits from duty-free car sales, as they had no vested right to such sales and voluntarily bargained away their claims for the privilege of making the sale.
• City OF ST. Paul v. Chicago
  413 F.2d 762· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A zoning ordinance restricting building heights is a valid exercise of police power if reasonably related to public welfare, even if it depreciates property values or serves aesthetic purposes.
• Sanders v. Erreca
  377 F.2d 960· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, as there was no deprivation of a federally secured right. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based
• Hiram J. Wright v. State OF La.
  362 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the issue of compensating attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants is a legislative matter, not a judicial one.
• Paul v. United States
  127 F.2d 64· 6th Cir.· 1942-04-08 ·cited 4×
  The government's lien for estate taxes has priority over subsequently acquired liens, and the estate tax lien does not require demand or filing of notice to be valid.
• Bojorquez v. State
  411 So. 3d 404· Fla.· 2025-06-05 ·cited 3×
  Taxicab companies that held certificates and permits issued by a special district dissolved by the Legislature challenged the repeal as a taking under Florida's Takings Clause. The Supreme Court held that despite the Legislature's designation of these instruments as "private prop
• Gulf Coast Transp., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty. & State of Fla.
  352 So. 3d 368· Fla. 2d DCA· 2022-10-07 ·cited 3×
  This case concerns whether taxicab medallions, previously declared "private property" by state legislation, constitute a compensable property interest under the Takings Clause when the legislature later abolishes the regulatory body and repeals the legislation. The court held tha
• The Town OF Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC
  226 So. 3d 303· Fla. 5th DCA· 2017-06-16 ·cited 3×
  The Town of Ponce Inlet appeals a $30.7 million judgment awarded to Pacetta, LLC for inverse condemnation and constitutional violations arising from the town's rejection of a proposed mixed-use waterfront development. This is the third appellate proceeding, reversing the damages
• Binford v. City OF Winter Springs
  969 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-11-02 ·cited 3×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment without considering the appellant's legal challenge to the validity of the amended ordinance.
• Abusaid v. Hillsborough Cnty. BD.
  637 F. Supp. 2d 1002· M.D. Fla.· 2007-09-06 ·cited 3×·via Takings Claim
  The court found that Plaintiff had standing to challenge specific permitting provisions of the Ordinance for lack of circumscribed time and limitless discretion, but not other constitutional claims.
• Bensch v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  952 F. Supp. 790· S.D. Fla.· 1996-12-16 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the inverse condemnation claim (Count II) was not ripe because plaintiffs failed to exhaust state remedies, and the trespass claim (Count III) was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The court denied the motion to drop parties, but encouraged future motions to a
• 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
• Seniors Civil Liberties Ass'n, Inc. v. Kemp
  761 F. Supp. 1528· M.D. Fla.· 1991-04-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their action for declaratory relief and denied the defendant's motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' memorandum.
• Hess v. The ST. Joseph Police Pension Fund
  788 F.2d 1344· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-17 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the denial of federal constitutional claims but remanded the state law claim for the district court to determine.
• In re Am. Pouch Foods, Inc.
  769 F.2d 1190· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-30 ·cited 3×
  The court should apply Illinois' Uniform Commercial Code as the rule of decision and hold that the United States held only an unperfected security interest in the seized assets.
• D'Arcy v. Fla. Gaming Control Comm'n
  361 So. 3d 935· Fla. 1st DCA· 2023-05-24 ·cited 2×
  Amendment 13's prohibition on dog racing and wagering does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment or Florida Constitution because the property owner lacked reasonable investment-backed expectations in the heavily regulated gambling industry, and the regulation is a val
• Ganson v. City OF Marathon
  222 So. 3d 17· Fla. 3d DCA· 2016-09-14 ·cited 2×
• Save OUR Beaches, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-04-28 ·cited 2×·via Takings Claim
  Stop the Beach Renourishment challenged a permit for beach renourishment in Destin and Walton County on constitutional grounds, arguing that the project unconstitutionally deprived riparian property owners of their riparian rights without just compensation. The court agreed, find
• Agripost, Inc. v. Metro. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  845 So. 2d 918· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-03-26 ·cited 2×·via Takings Claim
  Agripost sought inverse condemnation, breach of contract, and statutory damages after Miami-Dade County revoked its conditional waste disposal facility zoning permit due to nuisance violations. The court affirmed summary judgment for the County, holding that conditional and revoc
• 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
• Wash. Legal Found. v. Mass. BAR Found.
  993 F.2d 962· 1st Cir.· 1993-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Massachusetts IOLTA program does not violate the First Amendment rights of speech and association, nor does it constitute a taking of property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• In re Morel v. Morel
  983 F.2d 104· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The unpaid portion of a property settlement in a divorce decree is dischargeable in bankruptcy if it is not in the nature of alimony, maintenance, or support.
• Southview Assocs., Ltd. v. Ferdinand Bongartz
  980 F.2d 84· 2d Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of Southview's claims, holding that the denial of a land use permit did not constitute a physical taking, and that regulatory taking and due process claims were not ripe.
• Hirtz v. The State OF Tex.
  974 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-14 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs' suit against the State of Texas because the plaintiffs waived their objection to the state being substituted as the defendant, and no exceptions to the amendment apply.
• United States v. Sasser
  967 F.2d 993· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 2×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that the Corps had jurisdiction over the streams based on the 'ebb and flow' test and that the barriers were not grandfathered, thus affirming the order to remove them. Any takings claim must be brought in the Court of Claims.
• The Confederated Tribes OF the Colville Reservation v. The United States
  964 F.2d 1102· Fed. Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the navigational servitude is superior to legal and equitable claims for water power values, it does not necessarily defeat claims based on 'fair and honorable dealings' under the Indian Claims Commission Act.
• J.B. Ranch, Inc. v. Grand Cnty.
  958 F.2d 306· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment takings and due process claims were not ripe for federal review because the plaintiff had not first pursued available state remedies for just compensation.
• Lariscey v. The United States
  949 F.2d 1137· Fed. Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an inmate possessed a protectable property right in his invention, which was taken for governmental purposes, entitling him to just compensation under the Fifth Amendment, and that the government did not have a shop right to use the invention without payment.
• Broughton Lumber Co. v. Yeutter
  939 F.2d 1547· Fed. Cir.· 1991-07-12 ·cited 2×
  The Court of Appeals held that the district court correctly transferred Broughton's takings claim to the Claims Court, as neither the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act nor the Fifth Amendment provides jurisdiction in the district court for such claims exceeding $10,00
• Sangre de Cristo Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States
  932 F.2d 891· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Department of the Interior's initial approval of the lease was invalid due to NEPA non-compliance, meaning Sangre never acquired a vested property interest, thus precluding a Fifth Amendment takings claim. The court also held the United States was not liab
• Fields v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth.
  755 F. Supp. 377· M.D. Fla.· 1991-01-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that plaintiffs' federal claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to prior state court litigation on the same issues.
• Delbert Biddison v. City OF Chicago
  921 F.2d 724· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment taking claim was not ripe for adjudication because he failed to first pursue available state remedies for just compensation.
• Fern v. The United States
  908 F.2d 955· Fed. Cir.· 1990-07-16 ·cited 2×
  The United States is not required to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment to retirees for the economic effect of the Uniform Services Former Spouses Protection Act (FSPA) on their retired pay.
• Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. The United States
  905 F.2d 1515· Fed. Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary's denial of FLP's corn entry into the CCC grain reserve program was not a violation of regulation or constitutional rights, and the Claims Court correctly granted summary judgment.
• Turner v. The United States
  901 F.2d 1093· Fed. Cir.· 1990-04-13 ·cited 2×
  Summary judgment was inappropriate because the government's motion did not adequately raise the issue of whether the flooding was permanent or inevitably recurring, and the evidence presented allowed for an inference that it was.
• Ga. Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. The City OF Waynesville
  900 F.2d 783· 4th Cir.· 1990-04-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in declaring the ordinance facially unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement, vacating those orders. The case is remanded for a fact-specific inquiry into whether the ordinance constitutes an unconstitutional taking as applied to
• McNulty v. Town of Indialantic
  20 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20636· M.D. Fla.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the town's ordinances and actions did not constitute a taking of the plaintiff's property without just compensation or due process, as the regulations substantially advanced legitimate state interests and did not deny all economically viable use.
• Maurice and Dolores Glosemeyer v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
  879 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that § 1247(d) does not violate the Takings Clause because an adequate remedy exists under the Tucker Act for any potential taking, and that the statute does not violate the Commerce Clause or Contracts Clause.
• Littlewolf v. Lujan
  877 F.2d 1058· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 2×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act of 1985, which extinguishes Indian land claims in exchange for compensation, does not violate the Fifth Amendment, as its compensation provisions are reasonable and the Tucker Act remedy provides a sufficient saf
• Smith v. City OF Brenham
  865 F.2d 662· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that property owners' claims for an uncompensated taking, due process violation, and state law taking were premature or without merit, as no actual taking had occurred.
• Lariscey v. The United States
  861 F.2d 1267· Fed. Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a request for court-appointed counsel in a civil action is not immediately appealable, and the Claims Court lacks the statutory authority to appoint counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
• Belk v. The United States
  858 F.2d 706· Fed. Cir.· 1988-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The Claims Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was dependent on an international executive agreement, barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1502.
• Silverman v. Barry
  851 F.2d 434· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 2×
• Mitchell v. Mills Cnty.
  847 F.2d 486· 8th Cir.· 1988-05-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether county officials intentionally deprived them of their property without due process of law.
• Calvert Invs., Inc. v. Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Sewer Dist.
  847 F.2d 304· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the sewer district's action of intercepting sewage did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of the private sewer system owner's property because the owner possessed only bare legal title to the mains, which were subject to an easement for the lot owners'
• Cent. Ky. Prod. Credit Ass'n v. United States
  846 F.2d 1460· D.C. Cir.· 1988-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the enactment of the 1987 Act moots the appellants' challenge to the 1985 Act, but certain issues concerning the 1985 Act's implementing regulations and a directive may remain viable.