Legal Opinion
Vaizburd v. United States
United States Court of Federal Claims
Decided August 30, 2005No. 00-136LPublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BRUGGINK, Judge.
This is an action under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After trial, we concluded that the deposition of sand on plaintiffs’ property constituted a physical invasion and a constitutional taking. Because plaintiffs were unable to establish any decline in property value, we allowed plaintiffs no recovery. Vaizburd v. United States, 57 Fed.Cl. 221 (2003). On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sustained the finding of a taking and various other rulings, but remanded for this court “to decide whether evidence in the existing record supports an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ridge Line, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Miller v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1980
- Linda Vaizburd and Arkady Vaizburd v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2004
- Dynamics Corporation of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. The United States, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1985
- NRG Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 1994
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Sears v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2016
- Cienega Gardens v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2005
- CCA Associates v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2007
- Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
- Prakhin v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2017
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.