Legal Opinion
Andrew H. Yancey and Elizabeth H. Yancey, Plaintiffs/cross-Appellants v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided February 6, 1991No. 89-1698, 89-1729PublishedCited by 67 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MUECKE, Senior District Judge.
Seeking reversal of a Claims Court decision, the Government argues that the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) imposition of a poultry quarantine is not a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. On cross-appeal, the Yanceys seek a ruling that affirms the Claims Court’s decision but that increases the amount recoverable or, alternatively, a ruling that remands the case for a determination of statutory compensation under 21 U.S.C. § 114a (1972). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
BACKGROUND
This suit was brought by Andrew and…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- United States v. TestanSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- United States v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by67 opinions
- Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1994
- Maritrans Inc., Maritrans General Partner Inc., Maritrans Operating Partners L.P., and Maritrans Capital Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Cienega Gardens v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Preseault V. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
- John C. Grimberg Company, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
62 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.