Legal Opinion
NBH Land Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided May 17, 1978No. 332-75PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*42This case is before the court on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. It is a taking case, i.e., a claim "founded on the Constitution” under the Tucker Act, as it now is, 28 U.S.C. § 1491. The decisive question is whether the actions of defendant’s officials constituted takings by the United States under the law of eminent domain. We hold that they did not.
A full list of the plaintiffs runs to four pages. They are corporations, fiduciaries, and individuals who own or did own land between Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado, bordering the east boundary of the Fort Carson Military…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Regional Rail Reorganization Act CasesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Thomas E. Foster and Georgia Lee Foster, and Cross-Appellants v. City of Detroit, Michigan, and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1968
- Hooe v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Foster v. City of Detroit, MichiganDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1966
- Washington Market Enterprises, Inc. v. City of TrentonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1975
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Florida Rock Industries, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. The United States, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1986
- Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1993
- Del-Rio Drilling Programs Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Fred E. Langenegger, Steven W. Langenegger v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- Dimare Fresh, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.