Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit

Subscribe to Court of Federal Claims | Federal Circuit via RSS

In D & D Land Holdings v. United States, No. 06-877L (filed under seal: June 25, 2008, reissued: June 30, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims held the landowner’s claim that the Border Patrol’s activities on its land resulted in a compensable Fifth Amendment taking was not barred by the six-year statute of limitations, and that the landowner had a property right to keep Border Patrol agents off its property.  The CFC denied the federal government’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The court summarized the plaintiff’s complaint:

[P]laintiff claims that defendant’s construction of a border fence between the United States and Mexico resulted in the channeling of illegal immigrants onto its property “where they can be rounded up, arrested, and deported.”  According to plaintiff, Border Patrol agents utilize its property for these purposes on an “almost daily” basis.

Slip op. at 1 (citiation omitted).  The most interesting…

Continue Reading PING: blu ray playerURL: http://3dwise.co.uk/IP: 108.174.194.111BLOG NAME: blu ray playerDATE: 02/06/2013 01:46:39 PMinversecondemnation.com: CFC: No “Border Patrol” Servitude

The speed of information on the internet sure is fast.  I was preparing a post summarizing the recent Court of Federal Claims decision in Estate of Hage v. United States,No. 91-1470L (May 6, 2008), which awarded Nevadaproperty owners several million dollars in just compensation for the taking of theirvested water rights by the federal government, but Professor Gideon Kanner and the Real Estate and Construction Law Blog both beat me to the punch.

Kanner’s commentary on the case, “Posthumous Victory for Hage” is posted here. “Federal Claims Court Awards $4.2M to Ranchers’ Estate for Taking of Water Rights” is posted here.

Read the CFC’s opinion here.Continue Reading Court of Federal Claims Awards Compensation for Taking of Vested Water Rights

The property owner has filed a Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc in AmeriSource Corp. v. United States,No. 07-1521 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2008). 

In that case, the Federal Circuit held that when an innocent party’sproperty is seized for use in a criminal prosecution but never used as evidence, no FifthAmendment taking has occurred even though the property was rendered valueless during the time the government possessed it.  The government seized a largequantity of legal prescription drugs in its investigationof a pharmacy but never used the drugs as evidence.  Although the drugs were eventually returned to the owner, they had expired in the interim.

The Federal Circuit agreed with the government’s argument that it would be impractical to hamper prosecutorial efforts by a requirement that the owner of the evidence must be compensated.  Yes, paying for property seized as evidence may force the government to think…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit En Banc Petition in AmeriSource

In Richard A. Forsgren Revocable Living Family Preservation Trust v. United States, No. 07-14L (May 12, 2008), the Court of Federal Claims (the court which has exclusive jurisdiction over inverse condemnation claims against the federal government in excess of $10,000) held that a property owner who alleged the government caused its land to flood by not maintaining a subsurface drain stated a claim under the Fifth Amendment, and that the claim was not barred by the six year statute of limitations.  On the statute of limitations issue, the court discussed the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in John R. Sand & Gravel v. United States, No. 06-1164 (Jan. 8, 2008) which held that the six year statute is jurisdictional.  Read the complete opinion here. Continue Reading CFC: Takings Claim For Flooding Not Barred By Statute of Limitations