U.S. loses Supreme Court property rights case
- Thread starter Hefty1
- Start date
- #2
Thread Owner
LII Supreme Court Bulletin
[h=1]Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States (11-597)[/h]in
Oral argument:
October 3, 2012
Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Petitioner, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (the “Commission”) sued Respondent, the United States, for a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which compels the government to compensate parties when the government physically seizes property. Specifically, the Commission argues that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) permanently destroyed trees in a bottomland hardwood forest in Arkansas by intermittently flooding the forest for six years. The United States asserts that the actions of the Corps did not constitute a taking because the Corps did not oust the Commission of possession of the forest, and only a continuous invasion qualifies as a physical taking. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether a temporary invasion is a taking which will affect the meaning of the Takings Clause as it is used in future disputes concerning the destruction of property.
[h=1]Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States (11-597)[/h]in
Oral argument:
October 3, 2012
Court below:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Petitioner, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (the “Commission”) sued Respondent, the United States, for a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which compels the government to compensate parties when the government physically seizes property. Specifically, the Commission argues that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) permanently destroyed trees in a bottomland hardwood forest in Arkansas by intermittently flooding the forest for six years. The United States asserts that the actions of the Corps did not constitute a taking because the Corps did not oust the Commission of possession of the forest, and only a continuous invasion qualifies as a physical taking. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether a temporary invasion is a taking which will affect the meaning of the Takings Clause as it is used in future disputes concerning the destruction of property.
Goodyguy
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 6,489
- Reaction score
- 6,913
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Arizona
- Detector(s) used
- Whites TM 808, Whites GMT, Tesoro Lobo Super Traq, Fisher Gold Bug 2, Suction Dredges, Trommels, Gold Vacs, High Bankers, Fluid bed Gold Traps, Rock Crushers, Sluices, Dry Washers, Miller Tables, Rp4
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
Will the final decision become "retroactive" for use in cases begun before the decision?
replicaprops
Jr. Member
I have always felt the 5th Amendment would prevail in these cases. "nor be deprived of life, liberty or PROPERTY, with out due process (a trial) of law"
I feel the 5th also would apply to cops towing your car instead of just giving you a ticket. Cars are property just as much as land is.
I feel the 5th also would apply to cops towing your car instead of just giving you a ticket. Cars are property just as much as land is.
Hoser John
Gold Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 5,854
- Reaction score
- 6,726
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Redding,Calif.
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
SHOW ME THE MONEY AS LAST I HEARD MARK YOU WAS STILL A WAITN' FER YOUR CASHA FOR MONTHS NOW
??John 
??John Similar threads
- Suggestion
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest Discussions
-
Confederate Gold from the Civil War was Found in a Shocking Place- Latest: achanceforgold
-
-
-
-
