Legal Opinion

Moore v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided June 18, 2004No. 93-134LPublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BRUGGINK, Judge.

This is a class action in which the plaintiff class members seek compensation for the imposition of an easement for recreational trail use on their land. The court previously ruled that the government did in fact take such an easement for public use without compensation. Glosemeyer v. United States, 45 Fed.Cl. 771 (2000) (including the consolidated case of Moore v. United States, No. 93-134L). Following a valuation trial as to 13 representative parcels, we determined just compensation for those parcels. Moore v. United States, 54 Fed.Cl. 747 (2002). Thereafter, the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Glosemeyer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2000
  2. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  3. Illig v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003
  4. Moore v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2002
  5. Moore v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2003

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. The Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2013
  2. Moore v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
  3. Brace v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
  4. Balagna v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2018
  5. Boyer v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017

2 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