Legal Opinion
Laughlin v. United States
United States Court of Claims
Decided November 27, 1990No. 532-88LPublishedCited by 25 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
NETTESHEIM, Judge.
This inverse condemnation case is before the court after trial to determine liability. The trial was bifurcated at defendant’s request. Plaintiff asserts that the subsurface drainage to his Arizona farmland, located in the Mohave Valley near the Colorado River and Topock Marsh, was taken by the United States without just compensation when high groundwater levels invaded the root zone of plaintiff’s crops, thereby rendering the land unusable for agricultural purposes. As the cause of this high groundwater, plaintiff ascribes causation to the system of dams and…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. DickinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- United States v. CressSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Hopland Band of Pomo Indians v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1988
- Danforth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Martinez v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2001
- Patton v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- Myers v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2001
- McDonald v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1997
- Brace v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2006
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.