Inverse Condemnation

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

• KEY Haven Associated Enters., Inc. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund
  427 So. 2d 153· Fla.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 206×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a property owner seeking inverse condemnation relief must first exhaust all executive branch administrative remedies, but may then bring a circuit court action for inverse condemnation without seeking direct review in the district court of appe
• Hernandez v. City OF Lafayette
  643 F.2d 1188· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-01 ·cited 126×
  Local legislators are entitled to absolute immunity under § 1983 for conduct in furtherance of their legislative duties, but municipalities are not entitled to legislative immunity from damages for uncompensated takings of private property through zoning regulations.
• Arundel Corp. v. Griffin
  89 Fla. 128· Fla.· 1925-02-20 ·cited 94×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment for damages against the Arundel Corporation and the Board of Commissioners of Everglades Drainage District, holding that a state agency performing drainage operations cannot be held liable in tort for damages caused by overflow from u
• Foster v. City OF Detroit
  405 F.2d 138· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-11 ·cited 90×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction was properly invoked and retained, and that the statute of limitations and class action rules were correctly applied.
• Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp.
  640 So. 2d 54· Fla.· 1994-04-07 ·cited 87×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified that the invalidation of statutory restrictions on development within reservation maps under section 337.241 was based on due process grounds, not a per se taking theory. Landowners cannot automatically receive declarations of taking and jury t
• Palm Beach Cnty. v. Tessler
  538 So. 2d 846· Fla.· 1989-02-16 ·cited 86×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that property owners may recover damages through inverse condemnation when governmental action substantially diminishes their right of access to property, even without complete loss of access or physical taking of the land itself. The court answered
• Joint Ventures, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  563 So. 2d 622· Fla.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 85×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that statutory provisions allowing the Department of Transportation to impose a development moratorium on private land in anticipation of future acquisition constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. The court found
• Herrington v. Cnty. OF Sonoma
  834 F.2d 1488· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-24 ·cited 79×
  The court should have dismissed the claims as not ripe for review because damages were not calculable.
• Kinzli v. City OF Santa Cruz
  818 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the Kinzlis' claims were not ripe for adjudication because they had not obtained a final decision from the City regarding development and had not sought compensation through available state procedures.
• Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City OF Simi Valley
  882 F.2d 1398· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment taking claim was not ripe because they failed to seek compensation through available state procedures, but their Fourteenth Amendment due process claim was ripe and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Anhoco Corp. v. Dade Cnty.
  144 So. 2d 793· Fla.· 1962-03-07 ·cited 73×
  Anhoco Corporation sued Dade County for damages resulting from the destruction of its right of access to a land service road that was converted into a limited access highway. The Florida Supreme Court held that Anhoco is entitled to compensation for the temporary destruction of i
• Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc.
  521 So. 2d 101· Fla.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 70×
  The state must provide just compensation when it destroys healthy trees pursuant to its police power, even if the destruction order is otherwise valid. A taking occurs when the state destroys healthy property for a public benefit rather than to prevent a public harm.
• State Rd. Dep't of the State of Fla. v. Bender
  147 Fla. 15· Fla.· 1941-05-02 ·cited 70×
  The State Road Department took materials and land from a failed subdivision without compensation or consent. The Florida Supreme Court held that the State can be sued for such takings and that equity courts can adjudicate mass property claims fairly, affirming an award of compens
• Brumley v. Dorner
  78 Fla. 495· Fla.· 1919-11-29 ·cited 67×
  A landowner sued a county and neighboring property owner for damaging his land by obstructing natural water flow to Lake Monroe through road construction and artificial drainage that diverted water onto his property. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of demurrers, hold
• Reid v. United States
  715 F.2d 1148· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-16 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the actions were barred by sovereign immunity, improperly filed in state court, and that the sole remedy was an action under the Tucker Act, affirming the district courts' dismissal orders.
• Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Polk
  568 So. 2d 35· Fla.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 62×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Department of Agriculture's destruction of nearly all citrus trees at Polk's nursery constituted a taking requiring just compensation, except for trees showing disease symptoms and those within 125 feet thereof. The court reversed the damag
• Selden v. City of Jacksonville
  28 Fla. 558· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 62×
  Selden sued Jacksonville to enjoin construction of a viaduct that would raise the street grade, cutting off access to his property. The Florida Supreme Court held that a municipality may change a street grade without compensating abutting owners for mere consequential damages to
• Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bonanno
  568 So. 2d 24· Fla.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 58×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld Chapter 89-91, which established an administrative remedy and compensation schedule for citrus growers whose plants were destroyed during a state-mandated citrus canker eradication program. The Court rejected constitutional challenges to the statu
• City OF Tampa v. The Tex. Co.
  107 So. 2d 216· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-06-13 ·cited 57×
  The City of Tampa appeals a condemnation award for taking small corner parcels of property containing filling stations. The court addresses two novel questions: whether property owners can recover consequential damages from public improvements on separate public land, and whether
• Vincent v. Walker D. Hines
  79 Fla. 564· Fla.· 1920-04-21 ·cited 57×
  M. L. Vincent sued the Seaboard Air Line Railway for trespass and unlawful occupation of his land without compensation. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the bill of complaint, holding that Vincent acquired title to the property after the railroad's alleged trespass
• State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Stubbs
  285 So. 2d 1· Fla.· 1973-06-27 ·cited 56×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's reversal of a trial court's exclusion of severance damages evidence in a condemnation case where the state's construction of Interstate 295 placed the Stubbs' property in a cul-de-sac by rerouting access via an overpass. The
• Crigger v. Fla. Power Corp.
  436 So. 2d 937· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-06-30 ·cited 55×
  Florida Power Corporation sought to use electrical transmission lines across the Criggers' property without permission, claiming either an express easement from a prior owner or a prescriptive easement. The court held that the express easement was defective because it was granted
• C-Y Dev. Co. v. City OF Redlands
  703 F.2d 375· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-08 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction under the Pullman doctrine, as the case presented complex state law issues in a sensitive area of social policy that could potentially resolve or alter the federal const
• Cloutier v. The Town OF Epping
  714 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-05 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal claims, finding that while jurisdiction might not have been entirely lacking, the claims either failed to state a federal question or were barred by immunity, and that summary judgment was appropriate on the merits.
• POE v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  127 So. 2d 898· Fla. 1st DCA· 1961-03-07 ·cited 52×
  A landowner sought relief after a highway reconstruction project diverted surface waters onto his property, causing recurring flooding. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal based on res adjudicata, holding that the landowner's claims for consequential damages w
• Littlefield v. City OF Afton
  785 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 51×
  The court held that appellants had a protected property interest in the building permit under Minnesota law, and thus were entitled to procedural due process. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the procedural due process claim as appellants received adequate notice and
• Bowen v. Fla. Dep't of Env't Reg.
  448 So. 2d 566· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-04-04 ·cited 51×
  Landowners sought review of a circuit court dismissal of their inverse condemnation action after the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation denied their dredge and fill permit. The court reversed, holding that section 253.763(2) permits direct access to circuit court for
• Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty.
  801 F.2d 1143· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that Norco's federal and state claims were not barred by the statute of limitations because they did not accrue until the county made a final decision on the plat application, and that the claims were not barred by res judicata because the prior mandamus action cou
• Williams C. Hall and Jean G. Hall v. City OF Santa Barbara
  833 F.2d 1270· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 50×
  The panel opinion incorrectly held that a city rent control ordinance constituted a physical taking compensable under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• NEW Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty.
  985 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1993-03-17 ·cited 49×
  New Port Largo, Inc. (NPL) challenged Monroe County's rezoning of its property to private airport use, which the state court invalidated in 1986. NPL sold the property in 1982, before the state court's final judgment, and later filed federal takings claims in 1987. The Eleventh C
• Hohri v. United States
  782 F.2d 227· D.C. Cir.· 1986-01-21 ·cited 48×
  The court held that it has appellate jurisdiction over the case and that the Tucker Act waives sovereign immunity for Takings Clause and contract claims, but not for other monetary claims.
• Jackson Sawmill Co., Inc. v. The United States
  580 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the bondholders' claims for inverse condemnation and impairment of contract were properly dismissed, as they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Eyherabide v. The United States
  345 F.2d 565· Ct. Cl.· 1965-05-14 ·cited 48×
  The majority holds the defendant responsible for the destruction of structures on the plaintiffs' ranch, despite uncertainty about the direct cause, and also finds the defendant liable for imposing a servitude on the land.
• Jacobson v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  566 F.2d 1353· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while a cause of action for inverse condemnation against the TRPA fails due to lack of condemnation authority, a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment is stated. The TRPA is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment unless immunity is waived, and off
• Fla. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. John M. and Patricia A. Haire
  836 So. 2d 1040· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-01-15 ·cited 46×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture appeals a temporary injunction declaring the 2002 Citrus Canker Law amendments unconstitutional and prohibiting warrantless searches of private property. The court holds that the 1900-foot tree destruction requirement is constitutional but th
• Marjorie and Robert Schick v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs.
  599 So. 2d 641· Fla.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 46×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that contingency risk multipliers under the Rowe standard are not applicable when determining attorney's fees in inverse condemnation actions pursuant to section 73.091, where the legislature has specifically enumerated the criteria for calculating
• Zabel v. Pinellas Cnty. Water & Navigation Control Auth.
  171 So. 2d 376· Fla.· 1965-01-20 ·cited 46×
  Zabel and Russell sought permission from the Pinellas County Water and Navigation Control Authority to dredge and fill approximately 11.5 acres of submerged land in Boca Ciega Bay. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Authority erroneously placed the burden of proof on the app
• Rubano v. Dep't OF Transp.
  656 So. 2d 1264· Fla.· 1995-06-22 ·cited 45×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Department of Transportation did not effectuate a compensable taking of access to commercial properties when it temporarily relocated highway lanes, eliminated a U-turn, created a service road, and severed Interstate 95 connections during a
• Kendry v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  213 So. 2d 23· Fla. 4th DCA· 1968-07-31 ·cited 45×
  Property owners challenged a dismissal of their complaint alleging that the State Road Department took their property by violating easement restrictions, causing flooding damage, and filling riparian lands. The court reversed, holding that the complaint stated valid causes of act
• Orlando/Orange Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. W & F Agrigrowth-Fernfield, Ltd.
  582 So. 2d 790· Fla. 5th DCA· 1991-07-18 ·cited 44×
  A governmental entity's use of a recorded reservation map to "land bank" property, freezing land values and avoiding procedural protections, constitutes a taking requiring inverse condemnation.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rios
  813 F.2d 506· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim for damages for a regulatory taking is premature because they have not exhausted available remedies in Puerto Rico courts, and that claims against officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Richmond Elks Hall Ass'n v. Richmond Redev. Agency & the City of Richmond
  561 F.2d 1327· 9th Cir.· 1977-09-30 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Agency's actions constituted a de facto taking of Elks' property by inverse condemnation, requiring just compensation. It also held that Elks was not entitled to litigation expenses under federal or state law.
• Sarasota-Manatee Airport Auth. v. Alderman
  238 So. 2d 678· Fla. 2d DCA· 1970-08-19 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the issue of whether a taking has occurred in an inverse condemnation case is triable by the court, not a jury.
• R. J. Widen Co. v. The United States & Commonwealth OF Mass.
  357 F.2d 988· Ct. Cl.· 1966-03-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the government's actions constituted a taking of plaintiff's real estate and water rights, for which compensation has been paid, but that incidental damages to personal property and business were not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The court also awarde
• Doyle Conner v. Mid-Florida Growers, Inc.
  541 So. 2d 1252· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-03-31 ·cited 43×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a circuit court's peremptory writ of mandamus compelling the Department of Agriculture to immediately pay a judgment in an inverse condemnation case, holding that the trial court failed to follow the procedural requirements of Rule 1.
• Bruno Martino and Eugenia Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist.
  703 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the failure to submit a development plan does not, in itself, bar an inverse condemnation claim, and that damages may be recoverable for inverse condemnation.
• Dino Bello v. Walker
  840 F.2d 1124· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 42×
  Municipal officials' deliberate and arbitrary abuse of power to deny a building permit can violate substantive due process, but mere delays in issuing permits do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property.
• Corn v. City OF Lauderdale Lakes
  816 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Section 1983 action for damages was ripe because Florida law does not provide an adequate state remedy for injuries caused by confiscatory zoning ordinances.
• KEY Haven Associated Enters., Inc. v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund & Dept. of Env't Reg.
  400 So. 2d 66· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-06-01 ·cited 41×
  Key Haven applied for a permit to dredge and fill submerged lands it purchased from the state, which was denied by the Department of Environmental Regulation. Rather than pursue administrative appeals before the state's Internal Improvement Trust Fund trustees and then district c
• Matthews v. The United States
  713 F.2d 677· 11th Cir.· 1983-08-29 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Corps abused its discretion by allowing a private dock in a public recreation area and that the plaintiff was entitled to attorney's fees for this claim, but affirmed the denial of an injunction for sewage discharge and the finding on the restrictive coven