Takings Claim

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

• Save OUR Beaches, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Env't Prot.
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-04-28 ·cited 2×
  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×
  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
• United States v. Sasser
  967 F.2d 993· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 2×
  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.
• 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
• 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
• Littlewolf v. Lujan
  877 F.2d 1058· D.C. Cir.· 1989-06-30 ·cited 2×
  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
• 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.
• Hohri v. The United States
  847 F.2d 779· Fed. Cir.· 1988-05-11 ·cited 2×
  Cases involving both the Little Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims Act are appealable only to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• 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.
• Clark v. Cascio
  2020 WL 3895131· M.D. Fla.· 2022-02-04 ·cited 1×
  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×
  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
• Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Pete Beach
  322 F. Supp. 2d 1335· M.D. Fla.· 2004-01-13 ·cited 1×
  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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Deppe v. Sovinski
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-02-18
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because they acted within the scope of their discretionary authority and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that their actions violated clearly established law.
• Wallace v. Stephenson
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-08
  A pro se prisoner's civil-rights complaint alleging confiscation of a prison-issued tablet and purchased music fails to state a claim because the prisoner lacks a constitutionally protected property interest in the tablet and has adequate post-deprivation remedies under state law
• Colon v. Bureau of Alcohol
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-03-11
  The court held that plaintiffs adequately pleaded Second Amendment and APA claims but failed to adequately plead a Taxing and Spending Clause claim, and dismissed embedded claims for vagueness and takings.
• Moretto v. Securus Techs.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-12-07
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as the issue was a customer service dispute, not a governmental taking.
• Peterka v. Dixon
  N.D. Fla.· 2023-11-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's Takings Clause claim is dismissed without prejudice, and his substantive due process claims for damages and declaratory relief are dismissed with prejudice and without prejudice, respectively, due to qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment im
• Delmarsh, LLC
  Del.· 2022-05-10
  The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, upholding the Environmental Appeals Board's decision to deny Delmarsh, LLC's request to remove its lots from the State Wetlands Map. The court found that the Board properly admitted a 1926 aerial photograph into e
• Betson v. C.A. N20C-02-204 AML
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2021-03-11
  The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause because the vehicle was seized under the government's police power, not eminent domain. Furthermore, the court found that damages cla
• Mohit v. City of Haines City
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-04
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for violation of due process and the Fair Housing Act were properly dismissed because they failed to state a plausible claim or were untimely, while the takings claim would proceed.
• Rd. Space Media, LLC v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-01-28
  The court held that a plaintiff's as-applied constitutional challenges to a sign code are not ripe if the plaintiff has not been subject to the specific provisions challenged, but facial challenges may proceed if standing is established. The court also found that the statute of l
• ST. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Coy A. Koontz, Jr.
  183 So. 3d 396· Fla. 5th DCA· 2014-04-30
  This is a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority incorrectly affirmed a judgment in favor of Koontz, asserting that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision requires a disposition in favor of the District.
• Flava Works, Inc. v. City of Miami
  559 F. Supp. 2d 1318· S.D. Fla.· 2008-06-02
  The court held that most of the plaintiff's claims challenging the City's adult entertainment ordinance survived the motion to dismiss, but the takings claim was dismissed without prejudice.
• Maverick Media Grp. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  508 F. Supp. 2d 1126· M.D. Fla.· 2007-05-16
  The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.
• Collier v. State
  943 So. 2d 945· Fla. 4th DCA· 2006-12-06
  Appellants challenged the state's collection and sale of personal information from driver's licenses and vehicle registrations, alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and Florida constitutional takings and privacy provisions. The trial court dismissed the comp
• Watson Constr. Co. v. City of Gainesville
  433 F. Supp. 2d 1269· N.D. Fla.· 2006-05-23
  The court held that the plaintiff could not prove a procedural due process claim because the City's moratorium ordinance was a legislative act, and thus summary judgment was granted on that count.
• Strickland v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs.
  922 So. 2d 1022· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-02-17
  Strickland appealed a summary judgment dismissing his tort damages claim against the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for property damage caused by firefighters combating wildfires in Central Florida in 1998. The court affirmed, holding that the state is immune fro
• Agency FOR Health Care Admin. v. Baker Cnty. Med. Servs., Inc.
  832 So. 2d 841· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-11-18
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court judgment finding that the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) breached its Medicaid provider agreement with Baker County Medical Services by failing to pay Baker's full Medicaid rate for emergency outpatie
• Ordower v. Off. OF Thrift Supervision
  999 F.2d 1183· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-27
  The court held that while courts of appeals have exclusive jurisdiction to review the substance of an administrative agency's approval of a conversion, district courts retain jurisdiction to review the accuracy of proxy materials used to solicit depositor approval.
• Christensen v. Yolo Cnty. Bd. OF Supervisors
  995 F.2d 161· 9th Cir.· 1993-06-08
  The court held that the plaintiffs' "as applied" takings claim was unripe because they failed to seek compensation through state procedures, and their facial challenges under the Fifth Amendment, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Commerce Clause lacked merit.
• Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass'n v. City OF SAN Marcos
  989 F.2d 362· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action based on res judicata, as the claims were or could have been litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Mission Oaks Mobile Home Park v. City OF Hollister
  989 F.2d 359· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-30
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the federal suit under the Younger abstention doctrine because the state proceedings were ongoing, implicated important state interests, and provided an adequate opportunity to raise federal questio
• Rocky Mountain Materials & Asphalt, Inc. v. The Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF EL Paso Cnty.
  972 F.2d 309· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-05
  A procedural due process claim is unripe if it is based on the same deprivation as an unripe takings claim.
• Silver v. Franklin Twp.
  966 F.2d 1031· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-04
  The court held that the takings claim was not ripe for review because state remedies were not exhausted, and the substantive due process and equal protection claims failed for lack of a protected property interest and evidence of disparate treatment, respectively.
• Zamsky v. Stafford Hansell
  933 F.2d 677· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-17
  State officials acting in a legislative capacity, such as reviewing and approving or denying land use plans for compliance with statewide goals, are absolutely immune from damages liability.
• Farmers Union Cent. Exch., Inc. v. Thomas
  881 F.2d 757· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04
  The district court lacked jurisdiction under the Clean Air Act's citizen suit provision because EPA's decision not to recognize the disputed lead credit transfer involved discretion, not a failure to perform a nondiscretionary duty.
• Belvedere Dev. Co. v. Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist.
  7 Fla. Supp. 48· Palm Beach Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1954-10-18
  A developer sought judicial relief to compel a flood control district to enlarge its drainage facilities to alleviate flooding on its property. The court dismissed the complaint, holding that the drainage district has no positive legal duty to drain any particular parcel of land