Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (June 3, 2013)

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (June 3, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,781 |Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (June 3, 2013)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (June 3, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jun 11, 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

08/11/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No.
 
 ________ 
 In The
Supreme Court of the United States
 
MIKE MEHAFFY,
 Petitioner,
 
v.
 UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
 On Petition for Writ of Certiorarito the United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
T
HOMAS
J.
 
W
 ARD
 D
EVALA 
 A.
 
J
 ANARDAN
 N
 ATIONAL
 A 
SSOCIATION
 
OF
H
OME
B
UILDERS
 1201 15th St., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20005(202) 266-8200
 
W
ILLIAM
 A.
 
W
 ADDELL
,
 
J
R
.
Counsel of Record
 
B
RUCE
B.
 
T
IDWELL
 F
RIDAY 
,
 
E
LDREDGE
&
 
C
LARK 
,
 
LLP400 West Capitol Ave.Suite 2000Little Rock, AR 72201waddell@fridayfirm.com(501)
 
370-1510
 
June 3, 2013
 
i
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(
Corps
) entered into an agreement that gave the
Petitioner‘s predecessor in interest, Nomikano, Inc.,
the right to fill certain wetlands on its property. Inexchange, the government obtained a flowageeasement over a portion of the property. Petitionerwas Secretary-Treasurer of Nomikano and involvedin those negotiations. In 2000, Petitioner obtainedthe property. Subsequently, in 2006, he sought apermit from the Corps to fill certain wetlands inaccordance with the agreement. The Corps deniedhis permit.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuitheld that Petitioner had zero reasonable investment-backed expectations simply because he purchasedthe property after the enactment of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1521
et seq.
The Federal Circuitthen concluded that this, by itself, constituted asufficient regulatory takings analysis, and affirmed
the district court‘s dismissal of Petitioner‘s claims.
In
 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
, 533 U.S. 606(2001), this Court uniformly rejected the categorical
rule that ―postenactment purchasers cannotchallenge a regulation under the Takings Clause.‖
Id.
at 626.The questions presented are:1.
 
Can lower courts bypass
 Palazzolo
and inserta new categorical rule to the Takings Clause
 
ii
 
that regulations existing prior to acquisition of land solely and entirely negate the reasonableinvestment-backed expectations of alandowner; and2.
 
Can lower courts, in the land use regulatorytakings context, ignore the holistic, multi-factored balancing inquiry demanded in
 PennCentral Transp. Co. v. City of New York
, 438U.S. 104 (1978), and decide a case on a singlefactor?

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)//-->