Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Shirley Presley v. City of Charlottesville Rivanna Trails Foundation

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided September 22, 2006No. 05-2344Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTraxler, Circuit Judge

Today’s decision, in my view, departs from a long and well-established body of law under the Fifth Amendment and drastically changes important substantive and procedural aspects of federal inverse condemnation actions. As I explain below, permitting Presley to pursue her claim under the Fourth Amendment results in nothing less than the application of a new standard of liability, the creation of a new spectrum of damages, and the elimination of procedural prerequisites for pursuing an inverse condemnation claim in federal court.

According to Presley’s complaint, the City “seized” a strip of her…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. United States v. JacobsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Smith v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  4. Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. Memphis Community School District v. StachuraSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API