Legal Opinion
Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided March 29, 2007No. 05-168LPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WIESE, Judge.
In an earlier decision issued in this case, the court rejected plaintiffs contention that plaintiff was entitled to contract damages for water allegedly lost because of restrictions on stream-flow diversions attributable to fish habitat protection requirements imposed under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531—44 (2000). Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 72 Fed.Cl. 746 (2006). Left for later decision was plaintiffs alternative contention: that the losses complained of, even if not redress-able under a contract theory, nevertheless…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Casitas Municipal Water District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Casitas Municipal Water District v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2013
- Banks v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Casitas Municipal Water District v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.