Legal Opinion
Page v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided June 8, 2001No. 99-441CPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
HEWITT, Judge.
This is a pro se takings claim by the operators of an ostrich quarantine station. Plaintiffs, Ricardo J. Page and Paul E. Fenske, allege that a 1994 regulatory change pertaining to quarantine facilities for birds effected a “permanent and substantial interference with [them] leasehold and business” amounting to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. Complaint (Compl.) HI VI, X. Defendant, acting through the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS or the agency), has moved to dismiss or,…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Hobbs v. McLeanSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1999
- Cannon v. US Acoustics CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1975
- Charles B. Cannon v. U. S. Acoustics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1976
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Curtis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
- Grunley Walsh International, LLC v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Quebecor World (USA), Inc. v. Harsha Associates, L.L.C.District Court, W.D. New York · 2006
- Page v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2001
- Curtis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004