19 Cited authorities

  1. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

    505 U.S. 1003 (1992)   Cited 1,573 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Williamson County's "final decision" prong is prudential
  2. Kaiser Aetna v. United States

    444 U.S. 164 (1979)   Cited 585 times
    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 90 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 Commission

    17 Cal.3d 785 (Cal. 1976)   Cited 164 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 74 times
    Holding that regulatory ban on drift gillnet fishing was not a taking of fishing vessel and gear
  6. Accp. Ins. Co. v. U.S.

    583 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 45 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 55 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 46 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 46 times
    Holding that expectations arising from revoked import permits did not constitute a cognizable property right
  10. Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    829 F.3d 710 (D.C. Cir. 2016)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 14-5305 07-19-2016 Mingo Logan Coal Company, Appellant, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Appellee. Paul D. Clement, Washington, DC, argued the cause for the appellant. Jeffrey M. Harris, Nathan A. Sales, Robert M. Rolfe, George P. Sibley III, Richmond, VA, Virginia S. Albrecht and Deidre G. Duncan, Washington, DC, were with him on brief. Matthew Littleton, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellee. John C. Cruden, Assistant Attorney General, Aaron P.