Cases

635 F.3d 505 (2011) KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Drainage District, Poe Valley Improvement District, Sunnyside Irrigation District, Klamath Basin Improvement District, Klamath Hills District Improvement Co., Midland District Improvement Co., Malin Irrigation District, Enterprise Irrigation District, Pine Grove Irrigation District, Westside Improvement District No. 4, Shasta View Irrigation District, Van Brimmer Ditch

227 P.3d 1145 (2010) 348 Or. 15 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Drainage District, Poe Valley Improvement District, Sunnyside Irrigation District, Klamath Basin Improvement District, Klamath Hills District Improvement Co., Midland District Improvement Co., Malin Irrigation District, Enterprise Irrigation District, Pine Grove Irrigation District, Westside Improvement District No. 4, Shasta View Ir

Order for the court filed by Circuit Judge SCHALL. Dissent from order filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. SCHALL, Circuit Judge. CERTIFICATION ORDER This case presents the question of whether an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution has occurred. It also presents the question of whether the United States breached certain c

202 P.3d 159 (2009) 345 Or. 638 KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Drainage District, Poe Valley Improvement District, Sunnyside Irrigation District, Klamath Basin Improvement District, Klamath Hills District Improvement Co., Midland District Improvement Co., Malin Irrigation District, Enterprise Irrigation District, Pine Grove Irrigation District, Westside Improvement District No. 4, Shasta View Ir

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 ALLEGRA Judge. These consolidated cases have their genesis in temporary reductions made by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (the Bureau) on the use, for irrigation purposes, of the water resources of the Klamath Basin of southern Oregon and northern California. In their amended complaints, plaintiffs aver that the Bureau’s actions effectuated, alternatively, a takings and a breac

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge. What is property? The derivation of the word is simple enough, arising from the Latin proprietas or “ownership,” in turn stemming from proprius, meaning “own” or “proper.” But, this etymology reveals little. Philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Grotius, Pufendorf and Locke each, in turn, have debated the meaning of this term, as later did legal luminaries

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge: Section 1500 of Title 28 of the United States Code bars litigation in this court of *691 the same dispute pending in another court. Passed shortly after the Civil War, and long outliving its original purpose, this gatekeeper provision has oft been des

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

Pro Se Plaintiff; Motion to Dismiss; Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; Breach of Contract; Third-Party Beneficiary. ORDER HORN, J. FINDINGS OF FACT On June 8, 2015, plaintiff Victor Ogunniyi filed a pro se complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, in whi

663 F.Supp.2d 1086 (2009) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Michael C. REY, Defendant. No. CR 07-1761 JB. United States District Court, D. New Mexico. August 28, 2009. *1091 Gregory J. Fouratt, United States Attorney, James R.W. Braun, Nicholas Jon Ganjei, Assistant United States Attorneys, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff.</

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND FINAL ORDER BRADEN, Judge. This case involves allegations of the taking of grazing and water rights by the United States Forest Service on two allotments in the Gila National Forest of New Mexico. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs may not recover compensation under 43 U.S.C. § 1752(g), because Plaintiffs’ grazing permit lawfully was cancelled. In addition, t

532 F.3d 1376 (2008) KLAMATH IRRIGATION DISTRICT, Tulelake Irrigation District, Klamath Drainage District, Poe Valley Improvement District, Sunnyside Irrigation District, Klamath Basin Improvement District, Klamath Hills District Improvement Co., Midland District Improvement Co., Malin Irrigation District, Enterprise Irrigation District, Pine Grove Irrigation District, Westside Improvement District No. 4, Shasta View Irrigation District, Van Brimmer Ditc

BEEZER, Circuit Judge: This appeal arises from a proposed realignment of California State Highway 1 from the outskirts of the city of Carmel-by-the-Sea to nearby Hatton Canyon in order to relieve traffic congestion. Plaintiffs City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, Hatton Canyon Coalition and Sierra Club (collectively, “Carmel”) appeal the

95 F.3d 892 43 ERC 1586, 65 USLW 2208, 27 Envtl.L. Rep. 20,047,96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6847,96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,209 CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA; Monterey Peninsula Regional ParkDistrict; Hatton Canyon Coalition; Sierra Club,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; Admiral JamesBusey; Federal Highway Administration; Thomas D. Larson;California Depa

125 F.2d 775 (1942) CHESTER C. FOSGATE CO. v. UNITED STATES. UNITED STATES v. CHESTER C. FOSGATE CO. Nos. 10096, 10178. Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 6, 1942. Rehearing Denied March 7, 1942. *776 John S. Lavin, of Orlando, Fla., for Chester C. Fosgate Co. Arthur L. Jacobs, J

PRATT, District Judge. This is a suit to quiet title in support of an adverse filed in the Land Office against defendant Lowe’s application for patents. The plaintiffs allege ownership of the “L Association” and “Snow Shoe Fraction”, placer mining claims', by virtue of locations thereof in 1908. The defendant claims the ground in controversy by locations made in 1941, upon the theory (a) that the location

*712 Mb. Justice Sanford delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendants in error move to dismiss the writ of error or affirm the judgment. This is a suit challenging the constitutionality of an act of the State of Colorado creating a tunnel improvement dis

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION On March 24, 2017, I issued permanent injunctions in two related cases, Hoopa Valley Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation , No. 16-cv-4294, and Yurok Tribe v. Bureau of Reclamation , No. 16-cv-6863. See Hoopa Dkt. No. 111; Yurok Dkt. No. 70. The injunctions ordered the United States Bureau of Reclamation (the "Bureau"

TAYLOR, C. J. We granted leave in this case to consider two issues. The first is whether health care benefits paid to public school retirees constitute “accrued financial benefits” subject to protection from diminishment or impairment by Const 1963, art 9, § 24. We hold that they do not and, accordingly, affirm the Court of Appeals determination on this issue.1