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

• Hohri v. The United States
  847 F.2d 779· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×·via Takings Claim
  Cases involving both the Little Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act are appealable only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Greco v. Tampa Wholesale Co. & Clerk of the Cir. Court of Hillsborough Cnty.
  522 So. 2d 506· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-03-18 ·cited 2×
  The Greco family challenged the constitutionality of Florida statutes authorizing the clerk of court to retain registry fees and investment management fees from funds deposited in the court registry. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the family's motion to
• Tri-Bio Labs., Inc. v. United States & Food & Drug Admin.
  836 F.2d 135· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the FDA's policy of treating pioneer drug data as proprietary and confidential, thus requiring generic manufacturers to submit their own data, is a valid interpretation of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking when a
• Lambert Gravel Co., Inc. v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co.
  835 F.2d 1105· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Corps' exercise of the navigational servitude to prevent Lambert from extracting sand from the Disputed Bar was justified, and therefore Jones could not be held liable for Lambert's resulting damages.
• Loy Ree B. Marlowe Ballam v. The United States
  806 F.2d 1017· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-28 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's decision, arguing the government should compensate the landowner for property taken due to erosion caused by government action.
• Cont'l AIR Lines, Inc. v. Dole
  784 F.2d 1245· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Continental received adequate procedural due process and that the Civil Aeronautics Board's award was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the Federal Aviation Act and the Fifth Amendment.
• Ladd v. LAW & Tech. Press
  762 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the copyright deposit requirement is a constitutional condition for copyright, not an unconstitutional taking or burden on the press, and that summary judgment was proper without further discovery.
• Ramex Mining Corp. (83-5299) v. Watt
  753 F.2d 521· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, specifically section 1272(e)(2), applies to private mineral interests mined under federal national forest lands, and that takings claims are not ripe for judicial resolution until administrative remedies
• James v. United States
  740 F.2d 365· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that although the legislative history of Section 3 of the Flood Control Act of 1928 (33 U.S.C. § 702c) suggests it was intended to address property acquisition costs rather than tort liability, prior circuit precedent mandates that the statute grants absolute immun
• Cherry v. Steiner
  716 F.2d 687· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1980 is constitutional and that the Supreme Court's summary dismissal in Chino Valley II is not binding on the specific constitutional claims raised here. The court also found the Act was not void for improper referenc
• Peters v. The United States
  694 F.2d 687· Fed. Cir.· 1982-11-12 ·cited 2×
  A consensual modification of a government timber sale contract, even if it increases rates, is valid if the parties agree, and the modification can be applied retroactively to timber cut before the modification date if the agreement specifies so.
• T. O. F. C., Inc. v. The United States
  683 F.2d 389· Ct. Cl.· 1982-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiff's contract claim against Conrail and that the defendant's actions did not constitute a compensable taking of the plaintiff's property under the Fifth Amendment.
• Gibbons v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  660 F.2d 1227· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the ICC's directed service orders over a cashless railroad did not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking requiring compensation, as the railroad's common carrier obligation was not terminated by its financial condition alone. Benefits conferred by directed servi
• First Multifund for Daily Income, Inc. v. The United States
  602 F.2d 332· Ct. Cl.· 1979-07-18 ·cited 2×
  An open-end registered investment company must file a new registration statement for shares that have been previously sold, redeemed, and are now being resold.
• The Navajo Tribe v. The United States
  597 F.2d 1367· Ct. Cl.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Commission's denial of the Navajo Tribe's motion to amend its petition, holding that the claim for the Bosque Redondo Reservation was barred by the statute of limitations and did not relate back to the original petition.
• Smith v. United States
  458 F.2d 1231· 9th Cir.· 1972-04-18 ·cited 2×
  The government's seizure and continued use of the Smiths' warehouse, even after the tenant's bankruptcy, constituted a taking of private property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment.
• Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. The United States
  453 F.2d 1380· Ct. Cl.· 1972-01-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the sinking of the ship was a non-compensable taking during military operations, not a taking for public use, and that any claim sounds in tort and is barred by limitations.
• Garden Constr. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  423 F.2d 273· Ct. Cl.· 1970-03-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's costs and damages did not result from a taking by the defendant, as they were incurred pursuant to lawful requirements of Baltimore County.
• Sherrill v. The United States
  381 F.2d 744· Ct. Cl.· 1967-07-20 ·cited 2×
  The government's rerouting of a navigable river to improve navigation does not constitute a taking of private property compensable under the Fifth Amendment or the relevant statutes, as the government possesses a superior right to control navigable waters.
• Armstrong v. United States
  287 F.2d 577· Ct. Cl.· 1961-03-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the intrinsic value of the seized boats and materials exceeded the government's progress payments by an amount sufficient to cover the plaintiffs' claims, entitling them to just compensation.
• Hunter v. United States. Atchison
  283 F.2d 874· Ct. Cl.· 1960-12-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the third-party defendant's motions to dismiss were denied, as the prior dismissal under the Federal Tort Claims Act did not preclude a Tucker Act claim, and the statute of limitations was governed by federal law.
• The First Nat'l City Bank OF NEW York v. Gillilland
  257 F.2d 223· D.C. Cir.· 1958-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The District Court was correct in dismissing the appellant's complaint because the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission's actions were final and not subject to judicial review.
• United States Shipping Bd. Merch. Fleet Corp. v. First Nat'l S. S. Co.
  119 F.2d 6· D.C. Cir.· 1941-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Section 203 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 dissolved the United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corporation, revoking its charter and ending its capacity to be sued.
• Investor v. Manatee Cnty.
  355 So. 3d 1004· Fla. 2d DCA· 2023-02-03 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of a case brought by landowners challenging Manatee County's wetland buffer regulations. The court found that the regulations did not constitute an unlawful exaction or a permanent physical occupation of the landowners' pro
• Clark v. Cascio
  2020 WL 3895131· M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-04 ·cited 1×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for due process violations, judicial misconduct, and conversion were properly dismissed because they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and adequate state remedies existed for some claims.
• State v. Basford
  119 So. 3d 478· Fla. 1st DCA· 2013-07-24 ·cited 1×·via Takings Claim
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court judgment awarding inverse condemnation compensation to a pig farmer for improvements rendered valueless by the Pregnant Pig Amendment, which banned gestation crates. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Amendment effected a re
• Log Creek, LLC. v. Kessler
  717 F. Supp. 2d 1239· N.D. Fla.· 2010-06-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that equal protection claims were adequately alleged, but procedural due process, taking, open meeting, and defamation claims failed for various reasons including ripeness, immunity, lack of recurrence, and failure to allege fault.
• Agripost, LLC v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  525 F.3d 1049· 11th Cir.· 2008-04-22 ·cited 1×
  Agripost LLC and Agri-Dade Ltd., successors to Agripost Inc., challenged Miami-Dade County's revocation of their conditional unusual use permit for a waste-disposal compost plant on grounds that the revocation constituted a regulatory taking without just compensation under the Fi
• Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach
  322 F. Supp. 2d 1335· M.D. Fla.· 2004-01-13 ·cited 1×·via Takings Claim
  The court held that the plaintiff's facial challenge to the prior sign ordinance was moot due to the enactment of an amended ordinance, and that takings claims were not ripe. The court also found that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages or attorneys' fees.
• Belvedere Mil. Corp. v. Cnty. of Palm Beach
  845 F. Supp. 877· S.D. Fla.· 1994-03-01 ·cited 1×
  A federal court lacks jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment takings claim until the plaintiff has pursued compensation through state remedies, even for physical takings.
• Restigouche, Inc. v. Town of Jupiter
  845 F. Supp. 1540· S.D. Fla.· 1993-12-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal takings claims were not ripe for review, and granted summary judgment for the defendant on the arbitrary and capricious due process claims, finding no substantial federal question.
• S. Dade Land Corp. v. Sullivan
  853 F. Supp. 404· S.D. Fla.· 1993-11-23 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits for any of their claims, thus denying their emergency motion for a temporary restraining order.
• Patrick Media Grp., Inc. v. City of Clearwater
  836 F. Supp. 833· M.D. Fla.· 1993-10-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that certain claims were not ripe for adjudication because the plaintiff had not exhausted state remedies for compensation, while other claims were sufficiently pleaded to proceed. The court also denied the motion to dismiss based on statute of limitations, laches,
• Outdoor Sys., Inc. v. City OF Mesa
  997 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-30 ·cited 1×
  The sign codes do not facially violate the First Amendment or state constitutional free speech guarantees, nor do they effect an impermissible taking of property. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Media Gen. Cable OF Fairfax, Inc. v. Sequoyah Condo. Council OF Co-Owners
  991 F.2d 1169· 4th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 1×
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as this is a concurring and dissenting opinion. The author disagrees with the majority's interpretation of the Cable Act and its avoidance of the takings issue.
• Baggett Transp. Co. v. The United States
  969 F.2d 1028· Fed. Cir.· 1992-07-07 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the "prior consent statement" on government bills of lading, and the application of seals, did not constitute a request for exclusive use of shipping containers, thus entitling carriers to increased charges.
• Bensch v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  798 F. Supp. 678· S.D. Fla.· 1992-05-04 ·cited 1×
  The court held that John Maloy is entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed claims against him, but denied dismissal for SFWMD's flood-taking claim, while dismissing other claims against SFWMD for failure to plead adequately.
• Benton C. Cavin v. The United States
  956 F.2d 1131· Fed. Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the Cavins lacked a compensable property interest for takings claims based on pre-1984 Forest Service activities because they did not obtain a patent until 1984. However, a claim for post-1984 use of a road was not time-barred.
• 701 NPB Assocs. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  779 F. Supp. 1336· S.D. Fla.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 1×
  The court denied the FDIC's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated claims for declaratory judgment regarding the timeliness of the lease repudiation, for arbitrary repudiation, for damages, and for a Fifth Amendment taking.
• Front Royal & Warren Cnty. Indus. Park Corp. v. Town OF Front Royal
  945 F.2d 760· 4th Cir.· 1991-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from ruling on claims that depend on the interpretation of state annexation court orders and potentially available state remedies.
• Pinkham v. Lewiston Orchards Irrigation Dist.
  862 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-29 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' tort claims for damages caused by flooding on their allotted land do not fall within the scope of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1353 or 25 U.S.C. § 345, as these statutes are intended to protect rights appurtenant to allotments, not co
• Cone v. the Florida Bar
  626 F. Supp. 132· M.D. Fla.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that interest earned on nominal or short-term funds held in Florida's Interest on Trust Accounts (IOTA) program does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest of the client, and therefore, its appropriation by the program does not violate the Fi
• Organized Fishermen of Florida v. Watt
  590 F. Supp. 805· S.D. Fla.· 1984-07-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the challenged regulations were a proper exercise of the Secretary's authority and not arbitrary or capricious, and that plaintiffs were not third-party beneficiaries of an agreement between the state and federal government.
• Warner v. Hillsborough Cnty. Clerk of Courts
  11th Cir.· 2026-08-17
  Florida Statute § 116.21 is not facially unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because it could operate constitutionally in circumstances where property owners are unknown or unreachable. However, the Clerk's application of § 116.21 to Warner violated the Due Process Clau
• Martin v. Thirteenth Jud. Cir. Court in & for Hillsborough Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over claims that seek to modify or overturn state court judgments.
• Alford v. Walton Cnty.
  11th Cir.· 2025-11-17
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Walton County's ordinance barring access to private beaches constituted a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment, entitling landowners to just compensation. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims for prospective relief as moot.
• Osceola v. Forsyth
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-17
  The court held that the plaintiffs' amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, warranting dismissal.
• Colosi v. Charlotte Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-22
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing, the case was ripe, and not moot, denying the defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• 2145 Avocado Land Tr. v. Fla. E. Coast Ry., LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-14
  The court held that the defendant railroad is not entitled to dismissal of the plaintiffs' takings and trespass claims at this stage, as the claims are not clearly preempted by the ICCTA and the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged state actor status for the takings claim.
• Fulton v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs
  11th Cir.· 2025-07-31
  Brandon Fulton sued Fulton County after the county seized his horses during a criminal investigation, dropped charges against him, and failed to return or compensate him for the animals. The Eleventh Circuit held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause creates a direct cause of