§Why CasetextPricing

UNITED AFFILIATES CORPORATION et al v. USA

REPLY to Response to Motion re MOTION to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12

19 Cited authorities

  1. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

    505 U.S. 1003 (1992)   Cited 1,839 times   28 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Williamson County's "final decision" prong is prudential

  2. Kaiser Aetna v. United States

    444 U.S. 164 (1979)   Cited 634 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the `right to exclude,' so universally held to be a fundamental element of the property right, falls within this category of interests that the Government cannot take without compensation"

  3. American Pelagic Fishing Company v. U.S.

    379 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that there was no cognizable property right in fishing where fishing rights were subject to revocable permits and therefore “a matter of governmental permission, rather than a property right”

  4. Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com.

    17 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 183 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although developer had made improvements necessary for subdivision, it had no vested right since it had not obtained a building permit

  5. Conti v. U.S.

    291 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that revocable fishing permits under the Magnuson-Stevens Act are not compensable because to hold otherwise would compensate "a claimant for 'the value of a right that the Government . . . can grant or withhold as it chooses' " (alteration in original) (quoting Fuller, 409 U.S. at 493, 93 S.Ct. 801)

  6. Accp. Ins. Co. v. U.S.

    583 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 53 times
    Finding that a plaintiff who “could not freely transfer the policies at issue” without governmental approval had no protected property interest

  7. Maritrans Inc. v. U.S.

    342 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003)   Cited 57 times
    Finding that as a threshold matter, a takings claimant must demonstrate the existence of a legally cognizable property interest

  8. Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. v. U.S.

    424 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 51 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff lacked a cognizable Fifth Amendment property interest in access to navigable airspace

  9. Mitchell Arms, Inc. v. United States

    7 F.3d 212 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that expectations arising from revoked import permits did not constitute a cognizable property right

  10. Love Terminal Partners, L.P. v. United States

    889 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2018)   Cited 16 times

    2016-2276 05-07-2018 LOVE TERMINAL PARTNERS, L.P., Virginia Aerospace, LLC, Plaintiffs–Appellees v. UNITED STATES, Defendant–Appellant Roger J. Marzulla, Marzulla Law, LLC, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. Also represented by Nancie Gail Marzulla. Robert J. Lundman, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by John C. Cruden. Dyk, Circuit Judge. Roger J. Marzulla, Marzulla Law,