Calhoun v. Massie

8 Citing briefs

  1. Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss All Claims and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Arbitrary and Capricious Claims and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  2. PERRY CAPITAL LLC v. LEW et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment on Administrative Procedure Act Claims

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  3. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss All Claims and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Arbitrary and Capricious Claims and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  4. IN RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONS

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss All Claims and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Arbitrary and Capricious Claims and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  5. Fairholme Funds, Inc. et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  6. Arrowood Indemnity Company et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  7. PERRY CAPITAL LLC v. LEW et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss All Claims and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Arbitrary and Capricious Claims and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed May 2, 2014

    Id. at 510 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170, 175-76 (1920)). Plaintiffs do not and cannot cite any case that limits Omnia to federal “police power,” if such a power even exists.

  8. IN RE: FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC SENIOR PREFERRED STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT CLASS ACTION LITIGATIONS

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss All Claims and, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs Arbitrary and Capricious Claims and Memorandum in Support MOTION for Summary Judgment, [19] MOTION to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment MOTION for Summary Judgment Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Plaintiffs' Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 21, 2014

    Id. at 508-09 (quoting Calhoun v. Massie, 253 U.S. 170 (1920)) (emphasis added, citations omitted). The Federal Circuit’s more recent reliance on Omnia confirms that it stands for the proposition that when the government exercises its police power over property that it owns or controls, a third party cannot claim that it has suffered a taking merely because that police power regulation causes its property to lose value.