Flowage Easement

51 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. 1
  794 F.2d 1313· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-01 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the Government's position in a condemnation action was substantially justified, precluding an award of attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
• United States v. Twin City Power Co.
  248 F.2d 108· 4th Cir.· 1957-07-15 ·cited 42×
  The government must compensate the holder of a flowage easement for the destruction of that easement, even if the fee owner has been compensated.
• Gila River Ranch, Inc. v. United States
  368 F.2d 354· 9th Cir.· 1966-10-13 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court erred in modifying a judgment after remittitur without clear consent, and that the Badleys should not have been included in the reimbursement order.
• Slattery Co., Inc. v. United States
  231 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-07 ·cited 32×
• Nat'l By-Products, Inc. v. The United States
  405 F.2d 1256· Ct. Cl.· 1969-01-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Government's representations regarding the construction of a right-bank levee did not constitute a binding contractual obligation due to a material misunderstanding of the parties' intentions and the lack of mutual assent on that specific issue.
• United States v. 329.73 Acres OF Land
  666 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, and that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
• 2 v. United States
  350 F.2d 356· 5th Cir.· 1965-06-30 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment because the facts and law regarding prospective damages from underflooding were not clear enough for a definitive ruling at this stage.
• Barnes v. The United States
  538 F.2d 865· Ct. Cl.· 1976-07-09 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the government's operation of dams caused inevitable, recurring flooding above ordinary high-water marks, constituting a taking of a flowage easement and crop interests, and that the date of taking was November 30, 1973.
• Inez Utzinger v. United States
  432 F.2d 485· 6th Cir.· 1970-09-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the District Court erred by reaching a decision on proximate cause without making necessary supporting factual findings.
• King v. The United States
  427 F.2d 767· Ct. Cl.· 1970-06-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the construction of the Toronto Dam created a permanent, intermittent backwater effect causing substantial damage to plaintiffs' farmlands, constituting a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
• Fromme v. The United States & Victoria Cnty. Navigation Dist.
  412 F.2d 1192· Ct. Cl.· 1969-07-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant's construction of a channel and levee did not constitute a taking of a flowage easement because the interference with floodwater runoff was not permanent or inevitably recurring.
• United States v. The Fisher-Otis Co., Inc.
  496 F.2d 1146· 10th Cir.· 1974-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a flowage easement prohibiting habitation structures and requiring government approval for other structures also prohibits the use of landfill to raise land elevation above the easement's specified level, as it materially interferes with the easement's purpose
• United States v. 49.01 Acres OF Land
  802 F.2d 387· 10th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that landowners are not entitled to enhanced value of their property due to a government project if the land was within the original scope of the project and they had adequate notice, even if the government approved some development plans.
• Swanson v. United States
  789 F.2d 1368· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the federal government's navigational servitude, derived from the Commerce Clause, extends to artificially raised water levels in navigable waters, superseding state property law.
• King v. The United States
  504 F.2d 1138· Ct. Cl.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's decision, awarding plaintiffs compensation for flowage easements, interest, and litigation expenses, while dismissing claims for crop damages.
• United States v. 2
  218 F.2d 518· 4th Cir.· 1955-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court erred in awarding the fee simple value of the land; compensation for a flowage easement should be the difference in the land's value before and after the taking, considering only the actual extent of intermittent flooding.
• United States v. Dickinson
  152 F.2d 865· 4th Cir.· 1946-01-04 ·cited 12×
  When the government takes part of a landowner's property, it must compensate for not only the part taken but also for damage to the remaining land, including the cost of reasonable protective measures.
• J.R. Cooper v. The United States
  827 F.2d 762· Fed. Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the destruction of timber constituted a taking for which the current owner is entitled to compensation, even if the damage began before he acquired the property, as long as the taking was not complete until after acquisition.
• Loesch v. The United States
  645 F.2d 905· Ct. Cl.· 1981-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the construction and operation of the high-lift navigation dams were the direct and proximate cause of the erosion on their lands.
• United States v. 38.60 Acres OF Land
  625 F.2d 196· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims for impaired drainage and scattering of debris on property outside the flowage easement are not compensable as severance damages in a condemnation action, as they constitute claims for inverse condemnation.
• Olson v. United States
  67 F.2d 24· 8th Cir.· 1933-08-17 ·cited 9×
  The dissenting judge holds that the trial court erred in excluding evidence regarding the flowage or reservoir use of the land as an element of its market value in condemnation proceedings. The dissent argues that the adaptability of the land for such purposes, coupled with its l
• United States v. 255.25 Acres OF Land
  553 F.2d 571· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while a hearing might be better practice, the issue of whether fee lands fall within the authorization language can be determined on remand during the damages phase.
• United States v. 21.54 Acres OF Land
  491 F.2d 301· 4th Cir.· 1973-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The trial court erred by refusing to determine the factual location of the ordinary high water mark, as this determination is necessary to accurately describe the condemned land and does not interfere with the executive's discretionary power to determine the extent of the taking.
• United States v. 421.89 Acres OF Land
  465 F.2d 336· 8th Cir.· 1972-09-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of comparable sales evidence and the jury instructions were not prejudicial error, and the commission's award was supported by substantial evidence.
• United States v. 2979.72 Acres OF Land
  235 F.2d 327· 4th Cir.· 1956-07-31 ·cited 8×
  The government must compensate the owner of a flowage easement for the value of that easement when taken, excluding any value derived from its potential for water power development.
• United States v. 2979.72 Acres OF Land
  218 F.2d 524· 4th Cir.· 1955-01-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the power company is entitled to recover the fee simple value of the land for its flowage easement rights, as these rights were rendered worthless by the government's taking.
• VLX Props., Inc. v. S. States Utils., Inc.
  701 So. 2d 391· Fla. 5th DCA· 1997-11-07 ·cited 6×
  VLX Properties appeals a trial court judgment denying its inverse condemnation claim against Southern States Utilities for unauthorized discharge of reclaimed water into a jointly-owned pond. The court reversed on the pond issue, finding VLX stated a cognizable inverse condemnati
• Story v. Marsh
  732 F.2d 1375· 8th Cir.· 1984-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Army Corps of Engineers' decision to artificially crevasse the frontline levee is an action committed to agency discretion and therefore unreviewable, and that the district court erred in granting an injunction and in its rulings on condemnation cases.
• United States v. 60.22 Acres OF Land
  638 F.2d 1176· 9th Cir.· 1980-09-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a prior condemnation judgment granted the government an unrestricted flowage easement up to 96 feet mean sea level, and the government is not estopped from asserting these rights.
• Kanter Real Est., LLC v. Dep't of Env't Prot.
  267 So. 3d 483· Fla. 1st DCA· 2019-03-19 ·cited 4×
  Kanter Real Estate, LLC challenges the Department of Environmental Protection's denial of an oil and gas exploratory drilling permit on a 20,000-acre parcel in the Florida Everglades. The court reverses the Department's Final Order and remands, directing the Department to issue t
• United States v. 255.25 Acres OF Land
  712 F.2d 1263· 8th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's taking of appellants' land above 621 feet m.s.l. was authorized by Congress, even if it resulted from a change in land acquisition policy, because the lands were necessary for the authorized project and fell within the scope of the authorizing
• United States v. 10.48 Acres OF Land
  621 F.2d 338· 9th Cir.· 1980-06-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding the price paid by a condemning authority for a comparable easement, as such evidence is generally inadmissible to prove market value and was not relevant to testing the expert
• United States v. 344.85 Acres OF Land
  384 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing the government's proffered jury instruction, as its 'best evidence' language was misleading and the jury instructions provided were adequate.
• United States v. Wake Payne and Delight Payne
  368 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1966-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the commission's findings regarding damages for a flowage easement were not clearly erroneous and were properly accepted by the district court.
• Augusta Power Co. v. United States
  278 F.2d 1· 5th Cir.· 1960-04-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while flowage easements over fast lands adjoining a navigable stream are compensable, the method of valuation used by the lower court was erroneous. The compensation should be the value of the easement to its owner, not merely the difference in land value with
• United States v. 2979.72 Acres OF Land
  270 F.2d 707· 4th Cir.· 1959-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the electric power company is entitled to compensation for the value of its flowage easement, measured by the difference in the fair market value of the land before and after the taking, excluding water power value.
• United States v. Holmes
  238 F.2d 229· 4th Cir.· 1956-11-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court's judgment should be modified to remove rigid operational requirements for the dam, while preserving landowners' rights to seek additional damages for future increased flooding.
• United States v. Wauna Toll Bridge Co.
  130 F.2d 855· 9th Cir.· 1942-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bridge owner was not entitled to compensation for costs associated with altering the bridge to accommodate the Bonneville Dam, as the 1906 Act imposed a duty to maintain unobstructed navigation at the owner's expense.
• VLX Props., Inc. v. S. States Utils., Inc.
  792 So. 2d 504· Fla. 5th DCA· 2001-05-21 ·cited 3×
  VLX Properties sought inverse condemnation compensation after reclaimed water flowed across a portion of James Pond that it later acquired. The court receded from its prior decision in VLX1, finding that the original panel had misinterpreted the joinder agreement executed by the
• 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
• Anderson v. Bell
  433 So. 2d 1202· Fla.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 3×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that owners of land adjacent to or beneath a man-made, non-navigable lake do not possess riparian rights to use the entire lake surface merely by virtue of owning contiguous land, distinguishing man-made lakes from natural lakes where riparian right
• Cooley v. Clifton Power Corp.
  747 F.2d 258· 4th Cir.· 1984-11-01 ·cited 2×
  A downstream dam operator cannot impound river waters and cause inundation of an upstream riparian owner's property without the owner's consent, as this violates both South Carolina statute and common law.
• United States v. 1
  739 F.2d 1371· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the introduction of hydrology data and expert testimony was permissible and that the condemnation commission's report was adequate.
• 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.
• United States upon the relation & For the Use of the Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hughes
  408 F.2d 619· 6th Cir.· 1969-04-09 ·cited 2×
• United States v. Mrs. Vesta M. Pinson and J. H. Pinson
  331 F.2d 759· 5th Cir.· 1964-05-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the phrase "existing easements for public utilities" in the declaration of taking did not include flowage easements, and therefore, the Government's taking did encompass these easements.
• W.O. and Eliza Narramore v. The United States
  960 F.2d 1048· Fed. Cir.· 1992-04-07
  The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to reopen condemnation proceedings for claims exceeding the scope of the original taking, and that the proper forum for such claims is the U.S. Claims Court under the Tucker Act.
• Bistline v. The United States
  640 F.2d 1270· Ct. Cl.· 1981-01-28
  The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation for inverse condemnation because the government's dam project did not increase the elevation, frequency, or duration of flooding, and the plaintiffs' predecessors in title had granted a broad flowage easement releas
• United States v. 45.50 Acres OF Land
  634 F.2d 405· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-28
  The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award severance damages for the potential flooding of an access road not located on or adjacent to the condemned property.
• United States v. 62.17 Acres OF Land
  538 F.2d 670· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-13
  The court held that the landowner may be entitled to compensation for enhancement value if either the government previously offset such enhancement in a prior taking from the same tract, or if the condemned land was outside the original scope of the project.