Penn Central

Subscribe to Penn Central via RSS

Here’s the property owner/petitioner’s Reply Brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the Supreme Court takings case scheduled to be argued on October 3, 2012.

The Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps was only temporary that destroyed G&F’s trees did not result in a compensable taking merely because the flooding it eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases and regularly results in awards of compensation. The Federal Circuit’s opinion is here.

The Reply Brief responds to the federal government’s brief, and argues: 

The Commission seeks to apply the physical takings analysis, not a regulatory analysis like the Penn Central framework, that this Court established in flooding decisions like Pumpelly and…

Continue Reading Property Owner’s Reply Brief In Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n: Flooding Causing Destruction Is Physical, Not Regulatory Taking

Here’s the federal government’s merits brief in Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), the case in which the Federal Circuit held that flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and did not result in a compensable taking merely because it eventually stopped, and “at most created tort liablity.” The dissenting judge concluded that temporary flooding was no different in kind than more permanent flooding that occurs in other inverse condemnation cases, and regularly results in awards of compensation. The Federal Circuit’s opinion is here.

As you might expect, the brief phrases the Question Presented somewhat differently than the property owner/petitioner’s brief:

The Court of Federal Claims found that during several years in the 1990s, temporary and irregular changes in water releases from a flood-control dam operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers marginally…

Continue Reading Fed Govt’s Brief: “Temporary And Irregular Inundation Of Wetlands” (Read: Flooding) Is Not A Taking

We are at the ABA Annual meeting this week, so don’t have a lot of time to keep up a long-distance practice and write up comprehensive blog posts, so we’re going to keep it short.

Here’s the latest takings decision from the Federal Circuit in a case we’ve been following, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 2011-5001 (Fed. Cir. July 26, 2012). The property owners filed their case in 1991 in the Court of Federal Claims seeking compensation for the federal government’s taking of water rights in Nevada. In 2008, the CFC ruled in favor of the property owners, but the Federal Circuit reversed on Williamson County grounds because the case wasn’t administratively ripe. The federal agency, you see, has not reached a final decision on what the property owners might do with the land, and just might issue a permit (even if other similar permit applications…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: 22-Year Old Takings Case In Which The Landowner Is Already Dead Is Not Ripe

In a case that was probably doomed from the start because of an earlier precedential ruling, the Federal Circuit concluded that the government’s temporary seizure of the plaintiff’s computer “for review” at a border stop and the subsequent destruction of the computer hard drive and resulting loss of data was not a taking because the seizure was an exercise of the government’s power to control the border.

We’ve been down the road of Kam-Almaz v. United States, No. 2011-5059 (June 30, 2012) before, in AmeriSource, for example, where the government seized the plaintiff’s property as evidence in order to prosecute a third party, and by the time the government returned the property to its owner, it was worthless. In Kam-Almaz, the ICE agents took the laptop because Kam-Almaz was a “person of interest,” promising to return it shortly. However, during the time ICE had it, the…

Continue Reading Federal Circuit: Taking As A Result Of Police Power Isn’t A Taking

Here’s a key amicus brief in support of the cert petition in CCA Associates v. United States, No. 11-1353 (cert. petition filed May 8, 2012). In that case, the Court of Federal Claims concluded that it was a taking for Congress to prohibit a property owner from prepaying a government-issued mortgage, which required it to continue to allow use of its property as low-income housing. But the Federal Circuit reversed, and then denied en banc review.

The amicus brief of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, the Cato Institute, and the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence addresses three Questions Presented:

1. In conforming to the “parcel as a whole rule” propounded in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), does Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) require conflation…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief: A Temporary Regulation Can Work A Penn Central Taking

Here’s the cert petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in CCA Associates v. United States, a case we’ve been following since it was being argued in the Court of Federal Claims. The CFC found a taking, but the Federal Circuit reversed, and then denied en banc review.

Here are the Questions Presented:

Pursuant to a regulatory agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), Petitioner agreed to maintain and operate an apartment complex as low-income housing for as long as a government-insured, 40-year mortgage on the property remained outstanding. The transaction documents entered into among Petitioner, HUD, and the lender provided Petitioner with the express right to prepay this government-insured mortgage after 20 years and thereby regain complete control of the property. In response to concerns that owners would prepay their government-insured mortgages and cease providing low-income housing, Congress outlawed…

Continue Reading Cert Petition: Federal Circuit In Conflict With Kaiser Aetna

We couldn’t post much last week due to a pressing engagement on Friday before a three-judge federal district court (the case challenging Hawaii’s latest state reapportionment plan on Equal Protection grounds in which we represent the plaintiffs — more here). But the court took the matter under submission, so while we are awaiting a ruling we can clear off some of the backlog of items.

First, you will recall R&J Holding Co. v. Redevelopment Authority of Montgomery County, 670 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2011), a case we detailed here, in which the Third Circuit held that a property owner did not actually or impliedly litigate its federal takings claims in an earlier state court case, and thus actually allowed a property owner to raise its federal constitutional claims in federal court.

Apparently, a property owner even having a chance of vindicating its federal constitutional rights…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief: Federal Takings Claims And State Law Claims … Ehh, What’s The Difference?

The Penn Central test — reaffirmed in Lingle as the regulatory takings “benchmark” in all but a few cases — is one of those “factor” tests in which the trier of fact is supposed to examine three things: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the property; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government action. None of these factors is supposed to be dispositive.

In Noghrey v. Town of Brookhaven, No. D33861 (Feb. 21, 2012), the Appellate Divison of the New York Supreme Court, however, held otherwise, and overturned a jury’s verdict that the town’s zoning regulations worked a Penn Central taking because the loss of value determined by the jury wasn’t enough:  

The jury was instructed that damages were to be assesed by determinng the value of the properties immediately before and immediately after the rezoning. The difference between those…

Continue Reading NY App: Can’t Have A Penn Central Taking With “Only” A 46% Loss In Value

This just arrived: in Edwards Aquifer Auth. v. Day, No. 08-0964 (Feb. 24, 2012), the Texas Supreme Court, applying the Penn Central test, held that the government is not entitled to summary judgment because “the three Penn Central factors do not support summary judgment for the Authority and the State. A full development of the record may demonstrate that … regulation is too restrictive of Day’s groundwater right and without justification in the overall regulatory scheme.” Slip op. at 45. The court began the unanimous opinion with this summary:

We decide in this case whether land ownership includes an interest in groundwater in place that cannot be taken for public use without adequate compensation guaranteed by article I, section 17(a) of the Texas Constitution. We hold that it does.

I’m liking the Texas Supreme Court these days.

We’re getting a brief ready for filing today, so I haven’t…

Continue Reading Texas: “The requirement of compensation may make the regulatory scheme more expensive, but it does not affect the regulations themselves or their goals for groundwater production.”

sidewalk Here’s one court that gets its doctrine right. Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0819 (Feb. 21, 2012).

A property owner challenged a city ordinance that requires a landowner repair adjacent public sidewalks, else the city will do it and send the owner the bill, and if the landowner doesn’t  pay, the city will put a lien on the property.

The city told the owner to fix the broken and dangerous sidewalk next to its property. It didn’t (“Please proceed with the repairs. Do not wait for Bonito Partners, LLC to do the work.”). The city fixed it, charged the owner, and eventually put a lien on the property. The owner sued for both a taking and for due process.

The trial court granted the city summary judgment. In addressing the takings argument, the court of appeals first noted that takings and due process are…

Continue Reading Where The Sidewalk Ends: The Takings Power Is Different Than The Police Power