Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Page v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided December 28, 2001No. 99-441 CPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION AND ORDER

HEWITT, Judge.

I. Procedural History

This is a takings claim brought by pro se 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 [their] leasehold and business” amounting to an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. Complaint (Compl.) 1111VI, X. Defendant, acting through the United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS or the agency), moved to…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Haines v. KernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Arctic King Fisheries, Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
  2. Meidl v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2011
  3. Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2004
  4. State ex rel. AWMS Water Solutions, L.L.C. v. MertzOhio Court of Appeals · 2022
  5. Schrader v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2012

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API