Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Amicus Curiae Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Feb. 22, 2013)

Amicus Curiae Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Feb. 22, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,458|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Amicus Curiae Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Feb. 22, 2013)
Amicus Curiae Brief of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioners, Estate of Hage v. United States, No. 12-918 (Feb. 22, 2013)

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Mar 04, 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. 12-918
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
---------------------------------ESTATE OF E. WAYNE HAGE AND JEAN N. HAGE,
 Petitioners,
v.UNITED STATES,
 Respondent.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
On Petition For Writ Of CertiorariTo The United States Court Of AppealsFor The Federal Circuit
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OFMOUNTAIN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATIONIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
---------------------------------
---------------------------------J
 AIMIE
N. C
 AVANAUGH
 S
TEVEN
J. L
ECHNER
**
Counsel of Record
M
OUNTAIN
S
TATES
L
EGAL
F
OUNDATION
 2596 South Lewis WayLakewood, Colorado 80227(303) 292-2021 jcavanaugh@mountainstateslegal.comlechner@mountainstateslegal.com
 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
 ================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
 1. Whether the federal agencies can alter the scopeof a property interest granted by Congress by suasponte redefining the scope of the grant or im-posing a permitting requirement on the exerciseof the rights granted.2. Whether a federal agency’s interference with aperson’s ability to exercise rights granted byCongress by requiring a permit to exercise thoserights, which is not authorized or contemplatedby the granting statute, is properly analyzed asa physical taking rather than as a regulatorytaking.
 
iiTABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTIONS PRESENTED .................................. iTABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................... iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... ivIDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CU-RIAE .................................................................... 1STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................ 3SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 5 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 6I. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT’S RULING THAT AN 1866 ACT RIGHT-OF-WAY OWNERMUST APPLY FOR A SPECIAL USEPERMIT HAS NO BASIS IN LAW ANDCONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS FROMTHE NINTH AND TENTH CIRCUITS ...... 6 A. The Scope Of An 1866 Act Ditch Right-Of-Way Includes The Right To Main-tain The Ditch ........................................ 6B. The Federal Circuit’s Ruling Is In Con-flict With The Ninth Circuit’s DecisionIn
 Matejko
.............................................. 13C. The Federal Circuit’s Ruling Is In Con-flict With The Tenth Circuit’s DecisionIn
SUWA
................................................ 15

You're Reading a Free Preview

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