Recently in Property Law Category

Compensable taking claim against the United States

Ladd v. US, 10-5010, concerned a challenge to an order of the Court of Federal Claims granting summary judgment that no compensable taking occurred when the Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation Board (STB) issued a Notice of Interim Trail Use or Abandonment (NITU) concerning an easement over plaintiff's land.

Takings claims against the United States

CRV Enter., Inc. v. US, 09-5100, concerned a challenge to the Claims Court's judgment against the plaintiffs, in their suit against the United States, claiming that the government had taken plaintiffs' private property without just compensation by erecting a log boom that prevents plaintiffs from utilizing a slough adjacent to their property.

Today, the Federal Circuit decided a patent infringement case and another involving an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the government's distribution of revenue derived from an Indian reservation.

In Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., No. 09-1354, the court faced a challenge to the district court's finding of noninfringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with another tool.  In affirming the decision, the court held that the district court correctly construed the claims at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed. 

In Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US., No. 09-5084, the court faced a challenge to the Court of Federal Claims' entry of judgment in favor of the government on the ground that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the distribution of trust funds to the Yurok Tribe, from the Settlement Fund that was established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act. 

As stated in the decision: "The Hoopa Valley Tribe waived any claim against the government arising from the Act, received its share of the Settlement Fund, and retained no entitlement to the remainder in the Settlement Fund.  As such, at the time DOI distributed the remainder to the Yurok Trine, the Hoopa Valley Tribe was not a beneficiary of, and had no legally protected interest in, the Settlement Fund.

Thus, the court affirmed the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and held that the plaintiff lacked standing because it cannot show an injury in fact.

Related Resources:

• Full text of Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
• Full text of Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US

In Indian tribe's suit against the United States alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other duties as trustee of property and other assets owned by the tribe, Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the case without prejudice is reversed and remanded as 28 U.S.C. section 1500 is inapplicable because the present complaint and an earlier complaint filed in a district court seek different relief. 

Read E. Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma v. US, No. 08-5102

Appeal from:  United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided September 17, 2009

Judges

Before Gajarsa, Dyk, and Moore, Circuit Judges. 
Opinion by Dyk, Circuit Judge.   

Counsel

For Appellant:  Brian J. Leinbach, Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack, of Los Angeles, California

For Appellee:  Aaron P. Avila, Trial Attorney, Environment and Natural Resource Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC

Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of plaintiff's Fifth Amendment taking claim is affirmed where it correctly determined that plaintiff's property interest arose from access to and use of a navigable waterway, and thus, the interest is subservient to the Government's navigational servitude and is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment.    

Read Northwest Louisiana Fish & Game Preserve Comm'n v. U.S., No. 08-5039

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Decided: July 31, 2009

Judges
Before LOURIE, RADER, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by RADER, circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Plaintiff: William P. Crews, Jr., William P. Crews, Jr., LLC, Natchitoches, Louisiana.

For Defendant: Mark R. Haag, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

In a dispute involving a Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment issued by the IRS, Court of Federal Claims judgment is reversed where the court erred in holding that the IRS was entitled to the benefit of the six-year statute of limitations under I.R.C. sec. 6501(e)(1)(A), as the alleged overstatement of the basis of the property in question by plaintiff did not constitute an omission from gross income under the statute. Accordingly, the three-year limitations period of the statute controls, and the Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment is untimely, and therefore invalid.    

Read Salman Ranch Ltd. v. US, No. 08-5053

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims.
Decided: July 30, 2009

Judges
Before NEWMAN and SCHALL, Circuit Judges, and PATEL, District Judge.
Opinion by SCHALL, Circuit Judge.
Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN

Counsel
For Plaintiff: Alan Poe, Holland & Hart LLP, Greenwood Village, Colorado.

For Defendant: Joan I. Oppenheimer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, Dc.

In a Takings Clause action claiming that the U.S. deprived Plaintiff of the beneficial use of its property, summary judgment for Defendant is reversed where Plaintiff identified a cognizable property interest, namely fee title to land that could not be developed without regulatory compliance.

Read the full decision in Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc. v. US, No. 2008-5084.

Appellate Information:

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case no. 06-CV-00087, Judge Marian Blank Horn.
Decided June 16, 2009

Judges:

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

Counsel:

William Lee Guice III, Rushing & Guice, P.L.L.C., of Biloxi, Mississippi, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel was Lauren Sonnier, of Ocean Springs, Mississippi.

Robert J. Lundman, Attorney, Environment & Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General.