Cases

Takings, Physical or Regulatory Taking, Permanent or Temporary Taking, Water Rights, Tribal Rights, Endangered Species Act, Federal Reserved Rights; Motions for Reconsideration. FINDINGS OF FACT MARIAN BLANK HORN, Judge Plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases are a consolidated class of farmers in southern Oregon and northern California, who claim they held a right to receive water from

OPINION HORN, Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT The plaintiffs, who claim property interests along a rail line in Beaufort County, South Carolina, filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims alleging that the government caused uncompensated takings of their property interests pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The rail line at issue in the above captioned ease

*395OPINION HORN, J. At issue is a 3.46 mile right of way in Thurston County, Washington. The plaintiffs in this Longnecker class action allege that when the United States Department of Transportation, Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU), pursuant to the National Trails System Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1241-

OPINION HORN, Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT Plaintiffs, the Estate of Rankin M. Smith, Sr., Suntrust Bank, Taylor W. Smith, and Rankin M. Smith, Jr., Co-Executors (hereafter, the Estate), filed suit against the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(1) (2006), seeking a refund of estate taxes and interest on the value of property included in the taxable Estate of Rankin Smith, Sr. (Mr. Sm

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 16-1624L; No. 17-1931L Filed: June 29, 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * REINALDO CASTILLO, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * Motion for Partial Summary v. * Judgment; Takings Claim;

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 16-1624L; 17-1931L; 17-468L; 17-4680L Filed: March 1, 2023 * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * REINALDO CASTILLO, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * v. * * UNITED STATES, *

Nos. 16-865L, 16-893L Filed: June 1, 2018 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ANDREW S. LUCIER, et al., * THOMAS E. BEATTIE, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * * Cross-Motion for Partial Summary v.

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. “And then I know of no better way To close a road, abandon a farm, Reduce the births of the human race, And bring back nature in people’s place”1 This takings case is before the court following a trial in Washington, D.C. Plaintiff, Robert Brace, comes from a long line of farmers in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Signifi

Partial Summary Judgment; National Parks Service Concessions Contract; Valuation of Concessioner’s Possesso-ry Interest; Leasehold Surrender Interest; Statutory Interpretation; Contract Interpretation; Implied-in-Fact Contract. OPINION HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT and STATUTORY FRAMEWORK Plaintiff, Seven Resorts, Inc. (Seven Resorts), asserts a claim for compensation a

OPINION HORN, Judge. At issue is the scope of the rights of way in these multifaceted takings cases, involving numerous plaintiffs, multiple statutory land grants, different deed types, a prescriptive easement and subsequent conveyances over a more than one hundred year time period for property located along the eastern shore of Lake Sammamish in King County, Washington. The plaintiffs in these consolidated<

In the United States Court of Federal Claims Nos. 1-591L; 7-194C; 7-19401C; 7-19402C; 7-19403C; 7-19404C; 7-19405C; 7-19406C; 7-19407C; 7-19408C; 7-19409C; 7-19410C; 7-19411C; 7-19412C; 7-19413C; 7-19414C; 7-19415C; 7-19416C; 7-19417C; 7-19418C; 7-19419C; 7-19420C Filed: September 29, 2017 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * LONNY BALEY, et al., 1 and * JOHN ANDERSON FAR

OPINION HORN, Judge. FINDINGS OF FACT The above-captioned case concerns a contract between the government and the plaintiff, PCL Construction Services, Inc. (PCL), for the construction of a Visitor’s Center and Parking Structure at the Hoover Dam. The United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) awarded contract no. l-CC-30-09150 to PCL to construct a Visitor Cent

OPINION HORN, J. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This ease addresses the amended complaint filed by plaintiff, Kingman Reef Atoll Development, L.L.C. (KRAD) in 2012. Originally, Kingman Reef Atoll Investments, L.L.C. (KRAI) and KRAD brought a takings claim before this court alleging that KRAI hel

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-371 L Filed: January 5, 2018 **************************************** * * Comprehensive Environmental Response, WAVERLEY VIEW INVESTORS, LLC, * Compensation, and Liability Act of *

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 15-371 L Filed: January 5, 2018 **************************************** * * Comprehensive Environmental Response, WAVERLEY VIEW INVESTORS, LLC, * Compensation, and Liability Act of *

OPINION AND ORDER BLOCK, Judge. One issue that has over the decades divided this court is the distinction between torts and takings under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.1 The distinction is important because this court has jurisdiction over taking claims under the Tucker Act, but not over tort actions.2 At times, the court has indicated tha