Legal Opinion

Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided July 1, 2009No. 05-381LPublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

LETTOW, Judge.

This post-trial decision reprises the circumstances of a line of venerable precedents in the Supreme Court addressing situations where “superinduced additions of water” to rivers impaired the utility of adjacent lands and caused a taking. Pumpelly v. Green Bay & Mississippi Canal Co., 80 U.S. (13 *600Wall.) 166, 181, 20 L.Ed. 557 (1871) (Miller, J.) (holding that “where real estate is actually invaded by superinduced additions of water ... so as to effectively destroy or impair its usefulness, it is a talcing, within the meaning of the Constitution”); see also…

2Cases cited59 opinions

  1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  2. Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
  3. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  5. United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
  2. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
  3. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
  4. Sears v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
  5. National Food & Beverage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012

16 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