Legal Opinion

Amaliksen v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided January 21, 2003No. 99-6LPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AS AMENDED*

BRUGGINK, Judge.

This is an action alleging a Fifth Amendment, uncompensated taking of land previously burdened by an abandoned railroad easement. Pending are cross motions for summary judgment with respect to the claims of some of the plaintiffs. The single issue is whether the selected plaintiffs (Claimants 1 through 6) are owners of the fee interest. Oral argument was held on July 17 and July 26, 2002. For the reasons set out below, we find that plaintiffs do not own land underlying any portion of the easement and thus cannot maintain takings claims.

BACKGROUND

The lands at…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kipp v. Chips EstateSupreme Court of Vermont · 1999
  2. Buck v. SquiersSupreme Court of Vermont · 1850
  3. Dessureau v. Maurice Memorials, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1974
  4. Sheldon Slate Products Co. v. KurjiakaSupreme Court of Vermont · 1964
  5. Fairbrother v. AdamsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1977

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Thompson v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  2. Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. Loveridge v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020
  4. Mills v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2020
  5. STILL WATER MILLING COMPANY, INC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API