Topic
Every decision we've filed under Fifth Amendment - Takings.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order dismissing state-law claims and deferring federal claims under the Pullman abstention doctrine. The panel held that the case involved sensitive land-use policy where a state-court ruling could resolve the controversy.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings claim brought by oyster farmers. The court held that Louisiana statutes subordinate oyster leases to government actions taken for coastal protection, preventing a cognizable property interest under the Fifth Amendment.
The Eleventh Circuit held that sovereign immunity bars a suit seeking specific performance of contract amendments to college savings plans. While the court agreed the district court correctly found the suit barred, it vacated the dismissal with prejudice and remanded for dismissal without prejudice.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of property owners' takings and conversion claims against a county treasurer, ruling that the official was entitled to sovereign immunity. The court held that because Michigan law compelled the treasurer's actions regarding tax foreclosures and surplus proceeds, he acted as an arm of the State.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of sovereign immunity, clarifying that the proper defendant in this tax foreclosure dispute is Wayne County, not its Treasurer. Because the plaintiffs sued the county itself, the Treasurer's Eleventh Amendment immunity was irrelevant to the outcome.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a takings claim filed by landowners who were prohibited from mining coal under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. The court held that the claim was time-barred because it accrued in 2016 when the government determined the coal had a value of zero, well before the lawsuit was filed in 2023.
The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Harinder Singh's fourth amended complaint, ruling that he failed to state plausible claims for Eighth Amendment excessive fines or municipal liability. The court held that further amendment would be futile given Singh's history of defective pleadings and the lack of new factual allegations.
The Fifth Circuit remanded this case to clarify the specific relief granted in a district court judgment regarding a Takings Clause violation. The appellate court found the lower court's November ruling ambiguous about whether it provided operative relief to the plaintiff.
The Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to clarify whether a declaratory judgment was granted in a Takings Clause dispute. The appellate court held that the original judgment failed to specify the remedies awarded, creating ambiguity about the finality of the order.