Uniform Relocation Assistance And Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Of 1970

31 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• 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.
• United States v. 341.45 Acres OF Land
  751 F.2d 924· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-28 ·cited 38×
  The court should affirm the denial of attorneys' fees and expenses because the EAJA does not apply to condemnation cases.
• Miller v. The United States
  620 F.2d 812· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's findings on timber volume, severance damages, and litigation expenses, but modified the interest rate.
• Fountain v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  678 F.2d 1038· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging a taking of property for public use without just compensation, even if the entity lacks eminent domain power, but that abstention is appropriate pending resolution of a parallel state court a
• Devines v. Maier
  728 F.2d 876· 7th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the City of Milwaukee's order to temporarily vacate an uninhabitable dwelling does not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, reversing its prior ruling in Devines I.
• Parlane Sportswear Co., Inc. v. Caspar Weinberger
  513 F.2d 835· 1st Cir.· 1975-04-17 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 does not apply to persons displaced by federally assisted projects of private entities, even if those entities receive federal grants.
• Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. The United States
  640 F.2d 328· Ct. Cl.· 1980-12-17 ·cited 14×
  The court adopted the trial judge's report, modified to exclude compensation for delay in payment and to reflect the court's view on that issue. The court found that the establishment of the park did not depreciate the value of the remaining timberlands.
• 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.
• Harris v. Lynn
  555 F.2d 1357· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-25 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of relocation benefits, finding that HUD regulations did not expand statutory entitlements and that HUD's actions did not violate due process or equal protection.
• Rocca v. The United States
  500 F.2d 492· Ct. Cl.· 1974-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that plaintiffs are not entitled to reimbursement for litigation expenses because the taking was a legislative act by Congress, not by a federal agency, and the conditions for reimbursement under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act were not met. The court affirme
• Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Atlanta v. Millwood
  472 F.2d 268· 5th Cir.· 1973-01-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that HUD was not properly made a party to the state court action due to insufficient service of process, thus the federal district court lacked removal jurisdiction and could not rule on the substantive issues.
• Benally v. Hodel
  940 F.2d 1194· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that individual members of the Navajo Tribe lack standing to challenge the Relocation Commission's compliance with the Settlement Act, as such procedural rights are vested in the tribal chairmen.
• Campbell v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  326 So. 2d 66· Fla. 4th DCA· 1976-01-30 ·cited 8×
  A Florida appellate court quashed a final order from the Department of Transportation because the agency rejected the hearing examiner's findings of fact without complying with statutory procedural requirements. The agency was required to state with particularity why the examiner
• Richmond Elks Hall Ass'n v. Richmond Redev. Agency
  609 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1979-12-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and its implementing regulation, do not apply retroactively to property acquisitions that occurred before January 2, 1971, thus reversing an award of litigation expenses.
• Tullock v. State Hwy. Comm'n OF Mo.
  507 F.2d 712· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-23 ·cited 6×
  A Department of Transportation regulation restricting relocation benefits conflicts with the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act and is therefore invalid.
• Scottsdale Mall v. State OF Ind. & Ind. State Hwy. Comm'n
  549 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-16 ·cited 5×
  A state highway project that has received substantial federal involvement through programming, location, design, preliminary engineering, and right-of-way acquisition stages is considered a "major federal action" requiring compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NE
• Dillard v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev.
  548 F.2d 1142· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the determination by the Area Director of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
• Ark. Cmty. Org. FOR Reform NOW v. Coleman
  531 F.2d 864· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's injunction and order requiring new environmental impact statements, finding the district court's reasoning sound and supported by the record. It also granted leave for cross-appellants to seek relief from the district court under
• Douglas v. The United States
  576 F.2d 887· Ct. Cl.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a $75,000 fee retained by a permanent lender constituted a 'penalty cost' for the 'prepayment of a pre-existing recorded mortgage' under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, entitling the seller to reimbursement.
• Grames v. Sarasota Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-08-21
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, as an adequate remedy for compensation exists, thus denying their motion for a temporary restraining order.
• Grames v. Sarasota Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-03-31
  The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction because it failed to comply with federal and local rules regarding notice, verification, security, and demonstrating imminent irreparable harm.
• Forman's Dairy Palm Nursery v. Dep't of Transp.
  608 So. 2d 76· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-10-21
  Forman's Dairy Palm Nursery appealed DOT's denial of relocation expenses for trees displaced when the Department of Transportation acquired land for Interstate 595 construction in Broward County, Florida. The court reversed, holding that Nursery qualified as a 'displaced person'
• Collins v. The United States
  946 F.2d 864· Fed. Cir.· 1991-10-07
  The court held that Vermont's Land Gains tax is not a "transfer tax" or "similar expense" incidental to conveying property to the United States, and therefore is not reimbursable under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
• Hellenic Ctr., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  815 F.2d 982· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-07
  A property owner cannot recover legal and appraisal fees under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act when the government agency never instituted formal condemnation proceedings, even if negotiations were abandoned.
• Pietroniro v. Borough OF Oceanport
  764 F.2d 976· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-18
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the jury's verdict that the plaintiff was denied relocation assistance as required by federal law.
• The State of N.M. v. The United States
  665 F.2d 1023· Ct. Cl.· 1981-11-18
  The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover damages or federal participation in the cost of acquiring parcel 2-2-EL, as the claims of 'uneconomic remnant,' 'excess land,' and 'compensable severance damages' were not supported by the facts or applicable law.
• Pete v. The United States
  569 F.2d 565· Ct. Cl.· 1978-01-25
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c) authorizes the payment of litigation expenses by the United States in an inverse condemnation action involving personal property.
• Hall v. Curl
  566 F.2d 619· 8th Cir.· 1977-12-06
  The court held that the appellants' suit for declaratory judgment was properly dismissed because they had not yet applied for benefits, thus failing to establish an actual case or controversy required by Article III.
• Ala. State Tenants Org. v. Bass
  549 F.2d 961· 5th Cir.· 1977-03-30
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the first three causes of action as premature and affirmed the dismissal of claims seven, eight, and nine, but vacated and remanded claims four, five, and six.