Legal Opinion

Robbins v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided February 20, 1998No. 96-779LPublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MILLER, Judge.

This case is before the court after argument on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The issue is whether the designation and/or delineation of plaintiffs’ property as jurisdictional wetlands — resulting in the recision of a private contract to sell the property — constitutes a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.

FACTS

The following facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted. Nancy A. and Edward W. Robbins (“plaintiffs”), own and reside on a 38.4-acre parcel of land in Paris, Tennessee (the “property”), which supports a house, barn, shed, and machine shop.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Abbott Laboratories v. GardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  4. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 1992

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. R & Y, INC. v. Municipality of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. BartelDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2006
  3. SOUTHWEST CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIV. v. BartelDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2006

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

Powered by the Exa API