Legal Opinion
Robert E. Morris and Carol L. Morris v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided December 16, 2004No. 04-5029PublishedCited by 89 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge.
In this appeal, the Morrises challenge the decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims, which dismissed as unripe their claim that regulatory provisions of the Endangered Species Act effected a taking compensable under the Fifth Amendment. See Morris v. United States, 58 Fed. Cl. 95 (2003). Because the agency has discretion over the cost to the Mor-rises of complying with the regulations, this claim is unripe and we therefore affirm the trial court’s decision.
I
In 1995, the Morrises paid $2,500 to purchase a half-acre lot adjacent to the Eel River in Humboldt…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Palazzolo v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning AgencySupreme Court of the United States · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by89 opinions
- John R. Sand & Gravel Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2015
- Maritel, Inc. v. CollinsDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Navajo Nation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2011
- Arbelaez v. United StatesUnited States Court of Federal Claims · 2010
84 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.