Bowles v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, Chief Judge.
OPINION
This case presents in sharp relief the difficulty that current takings law forces upon both the federal government and the private citizen. The government here had little guidance from the law as to whether its action was a taking in advance of a long and expensive course of litigation. The citizen *40likewise had little more precedential guidance than faith in the justice of his cause to sustain a long and costly suit in several courts. There must be a better way to balance legitimate public goals with fundamental individual rights. Courts, however, cannot produce…
2Cases cited37 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., and Monterey-Del Monte Dunes Corporation v. City of MontereyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Resource Investments, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2009
- Hage v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1996
- Alegria v. KeeneySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1997
- Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1999
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.