Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Jan. 17, 2013)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Jan. 17, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,905|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Jan. 17, 2013)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Jan. 17, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jan 28, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
No.
I
N
T
HE
 
Supreme Court of the United States
THE
E
STATE OF
E.
 
W
AYNE
H
AGE AND
 
THE
E
STATE OF
 J
EAN
N.
 
H
AGE
,
 
P
ETITIONERS
 
v.
U
NITED
S
TATES
 
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
L
YMAN
D.
 
B
EDFORD
 
Clausen Law Group1160 Brickyard Cove Road,Suite 201Pt. Richmond, CA 94801bvilla@clausenlawgroup.com(510) 234-5155
 M
ARK
L.
 
P
OLLOT
 
Counsel of Record7227 West Potomac Dr.Boise, ID 83704mpollot@cableone.net(208) 867-8389
 
CURRY & TAYLOR
 
!
202-393-4141
 
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
The United States Court of Federal Claims(“CFC”) entered a judgment in the above-entitled caseafter nearly 20 years of proceedings, finding FifthAmendment regulatory and physical takings of ditchesand water rights owned by Petitioners pursuant to theAct of July 26, 1866, 43 U.S.C. § 661. The rights of 1866Act ditch rights-of-way have been matters of intensecontroversy in recent years.The Federal Circuit court reversed the ClaimsCourt’s findings of regulatory takings on ripenessgrounds by holding that Petitioners should have made anapplication for a maintenance permit, overruling theClaims Court’s finding, consistent with
SUWA II 
,discussed
infra
, that no permit was legally required. Itvacated the Claims Court’s findings as to physical takingsresulting from the government’s fencing off of Hagewater sources.The questions presented are:1. Whether governmental agency interferencewith a person’s ability to access and beneficially use hisvested water right under threat of prosecution, in part byrequiring a permit not authorized or contemplated by anystatute or regulation and in derogation of the very natureof the property right, is properly analyzed as a per setaking under Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV Corp, 458U.S. 419(1982), rather than as a regulatory taking underPenn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438U.S. 104(1978).
ii
2. Whether the Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management can alter the congressional grant orrecognition of water rights and rights-of-way pursuant tothe Act of July 26, 1866 by administratively redefiningthe scope and purpose of the easements or bysuperimposing a special use permitting requirement fortheir maintenance.3. Whether the fencing of water sources inwhich Petitioners had stockwater and other water rights,intended to and which was sufficient to prevent livestockaccess to the source for at least a period of time, is aphysical taking subject to
Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV Corp
., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) and
 Arkansas Game and FishCommission v. United States
, 512 U.S. ___ (2012)(slip.op.), without regard to whether some residualamount of water could escape.
 
Printed with FinePrint - purchase at www.fineprint.com

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->