Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit

Subscribe to Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit via RSS

The federal government has filed its brief responding to the cert petition which asks the Supreme Court to review a Tenth Circuit decision and resolve a lower court split about the meaning of the term railroad “right of way” as used in an 1875 federal statute and federal land patents subject to the 1875 Act.

The issue is whether the federal government retained an “implied reversionary interest” when it issued these patents, or whether these grants were subject only to a railroad easement. The difference is that easements may be extinguished, while reversionary interests cannot. In this case, the railway abandoned its use, after which the federal government instituted a quiet title action in federal court asserting it owned the right of way, and that it did not revert to the property owner.

Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the petition. Our brief argues that the…

Continue Reading SG’s Brief Not-In-Opposition In Railbanking Case: Court Should Resolve Circuit Split

Here’s the latest from William W. Wade, Ph.D., a resource economist with the firm Energy and Water Economics (Franklin, Tennessee). Bill is a frequent author and speaker on the regulatory takings issue, and he’s brought much needed clarification to an often confusing issue about how to apply the Penn Central test. He has authored several guest posts for the blog, and we’re glad to have him back with a short piece on regulatory takings.Here, he responds to a recently-published article on the “economic impact” prong of the Penn Central test for a regulatory taking.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Note on Economic Impacts andAverage Reciprocity of Advantage

William W.Wade, Ph. D.

Daniel L. Siegel, SupervisingDeputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, published anarticle, Evaluating Economic Impact in Regulatory Takings Cases in the summer 2013 West NorthwestJournal of Environmental Law & Policy.[1]Perhaps a brief rejoinder by an economist is suitable…

Continue Reading Guest Post: A Note on Economic Impacts and Average Reciprocity of Advantage

Remember that “audacious” case filed in the Court of Federal Claims by überlawyer David Boies on behalf of Starr International seeking $35 billion in just compensation for the federal takeover of AIG?

Well, it’s moving along, and apparently is in discovery (every lawyer’s favorite part of the case). Boies sought the deposition testimony of Fed Chair Ben Bernanke about his “personal involvement in the Government’s decision to bail out American International Group, Inc. (‘AIG’) in September 2008, and his knowledge of the specific governmental actions taken to implement the bailout.” Mr. Bernanke didn’t want to testify, claiming that as a “high-level government official,” the plaintiffs had to show that the information sought was not merely relevant under the usual discovery rules, but essential to the case, not not obtainable elsewhere. I’ve got better things to do, so stop bothering me and get this information from someone else, argued…

Continue Reading Fed Chair Bernanke Must Testify In AIG Takings Case

Here’s one for your civil procedure mavens. In TrinCo Investment Co. v. United States, No. 2012-5130 (July 18, 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for failure to state a claim of two California property owners’ takings lawsuit.

The case involved the federal government’s response to the “Iron Complex” fires in Northern California. According to the complaint, the Forest Service intentionally lit fires on the plaintiffs’ properties in order to reduce unburned timber which might fuel the Iron Complex fire. The Forest Service fires destroyed hundreds of acres of timber, valued at approximately $6.6 million. The plaintiffs claimed that the Iron Complex fire would not have burned their land, and sued in the CFC for compensation for the taking. The CFC dismissed, holding that it was not plausible under Rule 12(b)(6) that this was a taking, because the “doctrine of necessity” absolved the Forest Service…

Continue Reading Fed Cir: Invoking “Doctrine Of “Necessity” Does Not Automatically Absolve Forest Service For Taking Of Timber

This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.

Here’s another one, with a great angle: our ABA colleague Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and the guy who knows just about everything there is to know about disaster preparedness, disaster response, and property rights, is speaking tonight (Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 7:00 pm MT) along with BYU lawprof Lisa Grow Sun, about the Supreme Court’s takings cases:

This session will explore the legal landscape for community development and hazard mitigation/climate adaptation. Specifically, there has been tremendous press coverage of many U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term. One…

Continue Reading Today’s Free Webinar – Mitigation Options Affected by the Supreme Court in 2013: Koontz and Other Game Changers

Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a few days because it involves the nuts-and-bolts of eminent domain and inverse condemnation work — the calculation of just compensation and damages, and another victory for colleague Thor Hearne.

In a rails-to-trails taking case our of Florida, McCann Holdings, Ltd. v. United States, No. 07-4261 (June 27, 2013), the Court of Federal Claims awarded $3.1 milllion for the taking, which the government claimed was valued at only $825,000. 

We won’t walk through the entire case, but the court’s Opinion and Order is a very good roadmap for how to calculate severance damages in a partial taking of an easement.

Here’s more about the decision from the local paper.

McCann Holdings, Ltd. v. United States, No. 07-4261L (Fed. Cl. Jun 27, 2013)


Continue Reading CFC Provides Roadmap For Proving Damages And Just Compensation

Here’s the amicus brief filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petition filed June 5, 2013).

That’s the case in which the Supreme Court is being asked to review to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in which the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

PLF has posted a more in-depth summary of the case and the arguments in its brief here.

The cert petition is posted here, and another amici brief urging the Court to grant the writ is posted here.

Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-…


Continue Reading One More Amicus Brief In “Investment-Backed Expectations” Case: Can’t Regulate Away Right To Compensation

Do regulations that exist at the time that a property owner purchases his land negate any expectation that he will be able to use the land productively? Not according to this amici brief, filed today in Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (cert. petititon filed June 5, 2013).

The cert petition asks the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s unpublished opinion in which the court affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ grant of summary judgment to the government, holding that Mehaffy failed the Penn Central test solely because he purchased the property alleged to have been taken after the governmentt adopted the Clean Water Act.

The amici brief, filed by the National Federationof Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, the Cato Institute, and the Chapman Center for Constitutional Jurisprdence poses the Question Presented this way:

In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In “Investment-Backed Expectations” Case: Are Most Takings Claims Snuffed Out At Transfer Of Title?

The Supreme Court has denied cert in Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (cert. petition filed Jan. 17, 2013).

That’s the case in which the Federal Circuit held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing permit, it might issue a special use permit that might allow the use of the water he alleges was taken. The issue in the case was whether it is a taking for the government to cut off physical access to a property owner’s vested right to use water. The Court of Federal Claims awarded $4.2 million in just compensation for the taking of Hage’s water rights. But the Federal Circuit reversed because the case was not ripe.

In a different phase of the case, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada recently held that the…

Continue Reading Cert Denied In Western Water Rights Case