The court holds that a real estate developer, who alleges that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' denial of a permit to build a levee effected a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, failed to file suit within the statute-of-limitations period. The court first holds that under the circumstances...

The court holds that the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) failure to prevent livestock from trespassing on public lands over which a rancher held grazing permits does not constitute a Fifth Amendment taking or a breach of contract. The case arose out of BLM's failure to fully enforce an injunctio...

The court holds that a lower court erroneously limited its taking analysis to only one of four contiguous lots owned by developers who were denied a permit to fill wetlands on their property. The court first holds that, at the least, all four of the developer's parcels of property should be consider...

The court holds that a delay in the issuance of a development permit partly owing to the mistaken assertion of jurisdiction by a state agency does not constitute a temporary taking. The state agency originally denied a landowner's application for building permits due in part to the agency's erroneou...

The court holds that a Minnesota statute requiring public entities to comply with county waste management plans does not violate the federal Commerce Clause. The court first holds that the appellant waste contractors' association does not have standing to challenge one of the waste disposal statutes...

The court holds that a city's refusal to allow a waste transport company to dispose of solid waste from a military base in the city's landfill did not violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause. The court first holds that the city's policy does not have a discriminatory effect on interstate com...

The court upholds an injunction requiring an ore processing plant owner to provide the U.S. Forest Service with access to the area surrounding his mill and precluding further operations until the Forest Service approves a new operating plant. The court first holds that the district court did not err...

The court holds that the U.S. Constitution does not mandate retroactive application of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision to a waste disposal company owner who was convicted under state law for operating a hazardous waste facility without a permit. The waste facility operator and a co-defendant e...

The court holds that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a drilling company's takings and contract claims against the United States arising from the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) refusal to issue drilling permits for federal lands covered by the company's mining leases. The court...

The court holds unconstitutional a state statute that provides immunity from nuisance suits to farms in designated agricultural areas. A county's approval of an application for an agricultural area gave the applicants immunity from nuisance suits. Neighbors of the applicants contend that the approva...