Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit

Subscribe to Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit via RSS

Here’s one to definitely add to your blogroll: Federal Takings, by the rails-to-trails litigation practice at Arent Fox, including our frequent guest blogger, Thor Hearne. 

The focus is on rails-to-trails cases, but also by necessity covers takings cases in the Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit. Recent posts include, “Arent Fox Files ‘Rails to Trails’ Cert Petition with US Supreme Court for High Line Park Landowners,” and  a summary of an ongoing R-T-T case from Michigan. 

Highly recommended. 

Related articles
Amicus Brief In Rails-to-Trails Case: Switching Tracks To Undermine Takings Claims
New Cert Petition: In Rails-To-Trails Case, Fed Circuit Should Have Punted State Law Contracts Question To State Court
Guest Post: Two More Rails-To-Trails Property Owner Victories

Continue Reading New Blog Worth Following: Federal Takings

Here’s a new cert petition, filed yesterday, that poses two interesting issues, the first of federalism, the other of exactions.

This is a rails-to-trails case in which the federal government asserts that the easements imposed on private property for a public park in New York City after the railway was abandoned did not result in a taking because the owners signed agreements with the city giving up their rights in exchange for development rights on other parcels. Included within this agreement — to which the federal government was not a party — was a covenant not to sue the city or the federal government. When the owners sought compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, the CFC dismissed because the federal government was the third-party beneficiary of the city-owner agreement. 

This is a question of New York law, and according to the petition, no New York court has ever…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: In Rails-To-Trails Case, Fed Circuit Should Have Punted State Law Contracts Question To State Court

To those of you who joined us at the ABA’s Land Use, Planning, and Development Forum, thank you. Here are links to some of the topics I mentioned: 

Those of you who couldn’t make it can get the recording on CD or mp3 here in a couple of weeks, once it is produced.  

Related articles
Alabama: Recovering Compensation When The Govt Floods Your Land With Contaminated Water Is

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s Land Use, Planning, And Development Forum

We finally got around to reading “What Lies Beneath,” an opinion piece from the New York Times that we’ve been saving in our to-read list since the spring, Linda Greenhouse’s musings on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States.

In that piece, Ms. Greenhouse notes that Brandt was one of those cases she pretty much didn’t care about (“I hadn’t read the briefs or the argument transcript, let alone attended the argument itself.”). In other words, it wasn’t about Citizens United, abortion, or religion, the usual things the reporters who cover the Supreme Court beat consider hot topics. No, this was one that — even after she read the opinion — “I had only a vague sense of what the case was about and none whatsoever of its significance, if any,” that it it concerned what happens when…

Continue Reading New York Times SCOTUS Reporter: Wow, Brandt Was About Rails-To-Trails And Property Rights!

A federal court authorized court-appointed counsel in a criminal prosecution to retain Marcum for forensic accounting and litigation support services. There’s a federal statute which allows for payment for these services, and if the cost exceeds $2,400, the chief judge of the regional circuit must approve. The work Marcum performed went over that amount. By a lot. As in hundreds of thousands. The submitted budget was $4.5 million. Marcum didn’t get the Fifth Circuit’s chief judge’s sign off.

When Marcum received payment of some (but not all) of its invoices from the court, it sued in the Court of Federal Claims for a taking under the Tucker Act for the difference. 

No deal, held the Federal Circuit. In Marcum LLP v. United States, No. 14-5001 (June 13, 2014), the court held that the CFC Tucker Act lawsuit was a collateral attack on the Fifth Circuit’s determination of the fees …

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: No Tucker Act Takings Claim For Court-Appointed Counsel Fees

For you rails-to-trails fans, here’s the latest from the Federal Circuit. In Biery v . United States, No. 13-5082 (June 2, 2014), the court held that interests which certain Kansas property owners conveyed to railroads back in the day were grants in fee simple, and some were grants of an easement.  

The issue was dispositive because if the grants were in fee simple, then when the railroad abandoned railroad operations, the land could be converted to public recreational trail use without triggering a taking, but if the grants were easements, then upon abandonment, the owners should have got the land back, and are owed compensation. 

As noted, in 2004, the stretch of rail corridor at issue was converted to a public trail pursuant to the Trails Act. If, prior to the conversion, the BNSF held fee-simple title to the land underlying the corridor, then, for their part, plaintiffs-appellants possess no compensable property interests.

Continue Reading The Latest Takings Decision From The Federal Circuit On Railway “Rights Of Way”

Those of us who have been in the courtroom when the U.S. Supreme Court has conducted its sessions over the past decades will certainly recall the fairly tall guy in the fancy suit guiding the lawyers, press, and audience members where to sit, what to do, and the like. That was the Clerk of the Court, William Suter, who recently retired from the job after a number of years doing it.

He’s now a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and has authored this short piece, “Executive Power on Steroids.” where he posits that “[i]n four recent Supreme Court cases, the Obama administration takes a crabbed view of individual rights.” Two of the four cases Gen. Suter writes about (see, he’s also a retired U.S. Army Major General) are decisions with which we are familiar, Sackett and Arkansas Game and Fish:

What do these cases have in common?

Continue Reading Former Clerk Of The Supreme Court: Govt “Bullying” And “Strong-Arming” Property Owners

Here’s the latest from the Federal Circuit, a decision involving regulatory takings, the big auto bailout, and the nature of property rights. A&D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, Nos. 13-5019, 13-1520 (Apr. 7, 2014)

In the TARP and the related bankruptcy cases, the federal government bailed out the two big American auto manufacturers, General Motors and Chrysler. Part of the $55 billion assistance deal required GM and Chrysler to terminate the franchises of many dealerships. Not surprisingly, those dealerships didn’t care for the idea that their businesses were not “too big to fail,” and objected in the Court of Federal Claims to the idea that they should be sacrificed to the greater good with a takings claim against the federal government. 

Although the automakers were already reducing their dealer ranks over time and GM’s initial viability plan had included additional dealer terminations, the government determined that…

Continue Reading Fed Cir: Big Auto Bailout Could Be A Taking

Remember the Lost Tree case? That’s the one where the Federal Circuit concluded that a single parcel owned by the plaintiff was the relevant parcel against which the impact of the Corps of Engineers’ denial of a § 404 wetlands dredge and fill permit is to be measured. The court overturned a Court of Federal Claims decision which concluded the relevant parcel was that single plot plus an additional nearby lot, plus “scattered wetlands in the vicinity” also owned by the same owner. 

The case got remanded to the CFC, which now has issued its opinion determining the loss of economic value caused by the denial of the 404 permit. The CFC concluded that the “after” value was $27,500, and the “before” value was $4,245,388, a diminiution in value of a whopping 99.4%. Lost Tree Corp. v. United States, No. 08-117L (Fed. Cl. Mar. 14, 2014).

The court held that…

Continue Reading CFC: Denial Of Wetlands Dredge And Fill § 404 Permit = Taking = $4.2M Just Compensation

Professor Richard Epstein shares his insight about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014).

The issue in the case was whether the federal government retained an “implied reversionary interest” when it issued railroad patents to private landowners, or whether these grants were subject only to a railroad easement. The Court concluded they were easements, which means that they were extinguished when the railroad ceased using them as railroads. 

Professor Epstein joined an amicus brief filed in support of the property owners in the case, which argued that a contrary ruling would violate “the special need for certainty and predictability where land titles are concerned.” 

Listen to the podcast here. Or go to this page and follow the link from there. 

Related articles
SCOTUS Benchslap: Railroad Right Of Way Is An Easement, Just Like We Said A Long

…
Continue Reading Professor Epstein On SCOTUS Rails-To-Trails Decision