Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
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
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Kumho Tire Co. v. CarmichaelSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Sears v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- National Food & Beverage Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.