ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Real Estate & Property Law Blogs -> inversecondemnation

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Real Estate & Property Law

: inversecondemnation

Considered In Today's SCOTUS Conference: What Triggers The Takings Statute Of Limitations?

By Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)

ADVERTISEMENTS

IMG_20191203_064308

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering our cert petition during the Court's "long conference."
This is the case focusing on the interplay between Williamson County's "final decision" ripeness rule and the "case and controversy" injury-in-fact standing requirement, and asks: if the government makes its final decision, but the plaintiff isn't injured until later, has there been an actionable taking? 
Often, the date on which the government ripens a takings claim by making the final decision to apply the regulation to the plaintiff's property, and the date on which the plaintiff's property rights are actually affected are the same. But here, the two key events happened on different dates. The feds allege they made their final decision to jettison in the GM bankruptcy the plaintiffs' tort and related claims on July 1, 2009. The Federal Circuit accepted the government's assertion that final decision occurred when it uploaded its proposed order to the bankruptcy court.  The Federal Circuit held that this was the date that plaintiffs' property was taken,and thus the date that the statute of limitations clock started ticking.
The Federal Circuit, however, rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that their property rights were not actually injured in a concrete way until July 10, 2010, and even though a taking may be prudentially ripe under Williamson County, federal courts also require a plaintiff with standing. That is, a party who has suffered a concrete injury-in-fact. 
Here is the Question Presented:
The Federal Circuit concluded that ?[i]n the case of a regulatory taking, ... the taking may occur before the effect of the regulatory action is felt.? It held that the  Government?s ?final decision??its submission of a proposed order to the bankruptcy court for approval?was an actionable taking. Consequently, the statute of limitations clock started ticking even ?before ... the actual damage to the property interest [was] entirely determinable.? The question presented is:
Does the Tucker Act?s statute of limitations for a regulatory takings claim accrue when the Government makes a final decision, or when the plaintiff?s property rights are actually injured-in-fact as a result of that decision?
Here are all of the set of cert-stage briefs.
Stay tuned here, or follow along on the Court's docket. We'll let you know if we strike lightning.

Reply to Brief in Opposition, Campbell v. United States, No. 19-1252 (Aug. 25, 2020)

Motion to File as Amicus Curiae and Brief of Amicus Curiae Center for Auto Safety, Campbell v. United State...

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on September 29, 2020 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0153 secs (new cache)