Takings Claim

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

• Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc.
  399 So. 2d 1374· Fla.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 160×
  Estuary Properties challenged the denial of its development permit for a large-scale residential and commercial project in environmentally sensitive mangrove wetlands. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial as a valid exercise of police power to prevent environmental harm
• Executive 100, Inc. v. Martin Cnty.
  922 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-07 ·cited 123×
  The court held that due process takings and just compensation claims are not ripe until a final decision on development and pursuit of compensation is made, but equal protection, arbitrary and capricious due process, and tortious interference claims may proceed.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• In re Chicago v. United States & Interstate Commerce Comm'n
  799 F.2d 317· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-20 ·cited 35×
  The court held that a district court's approval of a railroad asset sale, even if erroneous, can constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment if the decision was not compelled by the regulatory system and diminished the property's value.
• Hillcrest Prop., LLP v. Pasco Cnty.
  915 F.3d 1292· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-13 ·cited 29×
  Hillcrest Property, a landowner in Pasco County, Florida, challenged the county's application of an ordinance requiring dedication of land as a condition of development approval, claiming the county violated its substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The E
• ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz
  77 So. 3d 1220· Fla.· 2011-11-03 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Nollan/Dolan exactions test applies only to land-use permit conditions requiring dedication of real property to public use when a permit is actually issued. The court reversed the Fifth District's expansion of exactions doctrine to non-land
• Taylor v. Vill. OF N. Palm Beach
  659 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 4th DCA· 1995-08-16 ·cited 26×
  A Florida landowner challenged the Village of North Palm Beach's 1989 Comprehensive Land Use Plan as a taking of her property (Little Munyon Island) when it changed the land use designation from limited commercial to conservation/open space. The court affirmed that the plan did n
• Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bogorff
  35 So. 3d 84· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-05-12 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services appealed a judgment awarding over 50,000 citrus tree owners $8 million in just compensation for healthy trees destroyed under its citrus canker eradication program. The court affirmed, holding that the government's destr
• Walton Cnty. v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.
  998 So. 2d 1102· Fla.· 2008-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Beach and Shore Preservation Act against a facial constitutional challenge, holding that the statute does not unconstitutionally deprive upland owners of littoral rights when restoring critically eroded public beaches. The Court balanced publi
• Lost Tree Vill. Corp. v. City OF Vero Beach & the Town of Indian River Shores
  838 So. 2d 561· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-11-13 ·cited 22×
  Lost Tree Village Corporation appeals the dismissal of its inverse condemnation claims against the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores, alleging the municipalities' combined regulations precluded all economically viable use of its island property. The court held th
• Pondella Hall FOR Hire, Inc. v. Lawson Lamar
  866 So. 2d 719· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-01-02 ·cited 17×
  Pondella Hall for Hire appeals dismissal of its counterclaims for damages arising from a civil forfeiture action. The court affirms dismissal of wrongful injunction and forfeiture damage claims but reverses dismissal of takings claims regarding personal property, remanding for de
• Town OF Jupiter v. Alexander
  747 So. 2d 395· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-09-16 ·cited 16×
  This inverse condemnation appeal concerns whether a temporary regulatory taking occurred when a municipality delayed development approval for two years. The court held that the owner's two non-contiguous parcels must be treated as a single integrated tract for takings analysis, a
• Minn. Ass'n OF Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Minn. Dep't OF Pub. Welf. & Leonard W. Levine
  742 F.2d 442· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-28 ·cited 16×
  The Court held that the part of the statute retroactively requiring nursing homes to refund collected charges exceeding an allowable rate differential unconstitutionally impairs contracts. However, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of the prospective rate limitations impos
• Golf Club OF Plantation, Inc. v. City OF Plantation
  717 So. 2d 166· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-09-16 ·cited 15×
  Golf Club of Plantation appealed the trial court's dismissal of its takings claims against the City of Plantation, which had denied permits for residential development and course improvements citing open-space preservation policies. The appellate court reversed the dismissals of
• DEL Monte Dunes AT Monterey, Ltd. v. City OF Monterey
  920 F.2d 1496· 9th Cir.· 1990-12-12 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the regulatory takings claim is ripe for review because the property owners made substantial efforts to comply with the City's conditions, and further applications would be futile due to the City's arbitrary and contradictory actions.
• Midnight Sessions, Ltd. v. City OF Philadelphia
  945 F.2d 667· 3d Cir.· 1991-10-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the City should have been granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the takings and procedural due process claims, and on Down South's substantive due process claim, but After Midnight's substantive due process claim requires a new trial.
• Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  911 F.2d 1331· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-09 ·cited 12×
  Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for relief because the court-imposed injunction, not the 1984 Plan, prevented them from building.
• Est. OF Rose Himelstein v. City OF Fort Wayne
  898 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Himelsteins' federal claims were not ripe for review because they had not pursued available state remedies for inverse condemnation and due process violations.
• Jacobs Wind Elec. Co., Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  626 So. 2d 1333· Fla.· 1993-09-30 ·cited 11×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that state courts have jurisdiction over takings and conversion claims involving patented technology against the state, even though federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement suits. Because the state's Eleventh Amendment imm
• Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Interstate Commerce Comm'n & United States
  850 F.2d 694· D.C. Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the ICC's interpretation of § 8(d) to allow only voluntary transfers of railroad rights-of-way was reasonable, but remanded the case to reconsider whether the application of its rules constitutes a taking of reversionary interests without just compensation.
• Morton P. MacLEOD v. Cnty. OF Santa Clara
  749 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1984-12-10 ·cited 11×
  The denial of a permit to harvest timber did not constitute a compensable taking because it did not interfere with the primary uses or investment-backed expectations of the property, even if it prevented the 'highest and best use'.
• Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conservation Comm'n v. Daws
  256 So. 3d 907· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-08-16 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) appeals a trial court order granting a temporary injunction requiring the FWC to abate nuisances from deer dog hunting on adjacent private property, where hunters and their dogs occasionally trespass onto private landown
• ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, Jr.
  5 So. 3d 8· Fla. 5th DCA· 2009-01-09 ·cited 9×
  The St. Johns River Water Management District appealed a trial court judgment awarding inverse condemnation damages to a property owner whose permit application was denied based on alleged improper exactions. The appellate court affirmed, holding that exactions claims are cogniza
• Trepanier v. Cnty. OF Volusia
  965 So. 2d 276· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-09-14 ·cited 9×
  Beachfront property owners in Volusia County challenged the county's allowance of public vehicular traffic and parking on their platted beach lots, claiming trespass and inverse condemnation. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for the county on prescr
• Est. OF Mary Elizabeth Whitney Tippett v. City OF Miami
  645 So. 2d 533· Fla. 3d DCA· 1994-11-09 ·cited 8×
  Landowners challenged the creation of a historic district designation encompassing their property as an unconstitutional taking. The court denied their petition for certiorari, holding that their takings claim was not ripe because they had not sought permits under the ordinance a
• John v. Esposito
  939 F.2d 165· 4th Cir.· 1991-07-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Just Compensation Clause applies even if a regulation is not foolish, and that the "no economically viable use" test is not appropriate for as-applied takings challenges.
• McKAY v. United States
  703 F.2d 464· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that neither the doctrine of preemption nor the political question doctrine justifies the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for damages arising from the operation of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, and that the case should not have been disposed of by summ
• Hill v. Suwannee River Water Mgmt. Dist.
  217 So. 3d 1100· Fla. 1st DCA· 2017-04-18 ·cited 7×
  The Hills appealed summary judgment dismissing their takings claim against the Suwannee River Water Management District on quasi-judicial immunity grounds. The court reversed, holding that the District's actions in draining the Hills' pond pursuant to court orders were not judici
• Hendler v. The United States
  952 F.2d 1364· Fed. Cir.· 1991-12-31 ·cited 7×
  The dismissal sanction was improvidently granted and is reversed; the partial summary judgment regarding the State of California's actions is also reversed; and judgment is ordered for plaintiffs on the physical occupation taking claim.
• Allied-General Nuclear Servs. v. The United States
  839 F.2d 1572· Fed. Cir.· 1988-02-24 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the claimant had no legally protected property right to operate the plant that could be the subject of a Fifth Amendment taking, as the government's action was to prevent injury to national security.
• The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Sarasota Cnty. v. Webber
  658 So. 2d 1069· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-06-30 ·cited 6×
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Clifford Y.C. LAI and Victoria L. Lai v. City & Cnty. OF Honolulu
  841 F.2d 301· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-07 ·cited 6×
  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.
• P.I.E., LLC v. DeSOTO Cnty.
  133 So. 3d 577· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-02-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a factual dispute exists regarding when a regulation was 'first applied' to the property, precluding dismissal based solely on the complaint's face.
• Clay v. Monroe Cnty.
  849 So. 2d 363· Fla. 3d DCA· 2003-05-14 ·cited 5×
  Property owners on Big Pine Key appealed the denial of a mandamus petition seeking to compel Monroe County to issue building permits that had been withheld due to inadequate transportation concurrency on U.S. Highway 1. The court affirmed, finding the mandamus claim moot after th
• Nixon v. United States
  978 F.2d 1269· D.C. Cir.· 1992-11-17 ·cited 5×
  The court held that former President Nixon had a compensable property interest in his presidential papers, and the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) constituted a per se taking requiring just compensation.
• Selwyn A. Robinson under the Will of Alymer F. Robinson v. Ariyoshi
  933 F.2d 781· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that plaintiffs were not prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because their claims were ultimately dismissed on ripeness grounds, and they failed to demonstrate a material alteration of the legal relationship with the defendants.
• Raymond and Barbara Seguin v. The City OF Sterling Heights
  968 F.2d 584· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment takings and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims were not ripe because plaintiffs failed to pursue state remedies and obtain a final decision. However, the procedural due process claim was ripe, but ultimately failed due to lack of
• Selwyn A. Robinson under the Will of Alymer F. Robinson v. Ariyoshi
  887 F.2d 215· 9th Cir.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the dispute was not ripe for federal constitutional challenge because the state court's decision did not represent a final, definitive position on the property interests at issue.
• United States v. Larkins
  852 F.2d 189· 6th Cir.· 1988-07-22 ·cited 4×
  The court clarifies that it is not deciding the issue of whether the Corps of Engineers has jurisdiction over wetlands not adjacent to navigable waters, as the landowner declined to raise this issue.
• Hohri v. United States
  793 F.2d 304· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 4×
• 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
• Binford v. City OF Winter Springs
  969 So. 2d 1098· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-11-02 ·cited 3×
  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×
  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.
• 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