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
Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (July 2, 2013)

Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (July 2, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,512|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (July 2, 2013)
Brief Amicus Curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (July 2, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jul 02, 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

09/04/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 12-1416
In the
SupremeCourtoftheUnitedStates
MIKE MEHAFFY,
 Petitioner,
v.UNITED STATES,
Respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorarito the United States Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PACIFIC LEGALFOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
R.S.R
 ADFORD
Pacific Legal Foundation930 G StreetSacramento, California 95814Telephone: (916) 419-7111Facsimile: (916) 419-7747E-mail: rsr@pacificlegal.orgD
 ANIEL
 A.H
IMEBAUGH
Counsel of Record
Pacific Legal Foundation10940 NE 33
rd
Place, Ste. 210Bellevue, Washington 98004Telephone: (425) 576-0484Facsimile: (425) 576-9565E-mail: dah@pacificlegal.org
Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation
 
i
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
In1970,theArmyCorpsofEngineersenteredintoan agreement that acknowledged the right oPetitioner Mike Mehaffy’s predecessor-in-interest,Nomikano,Inc., to fill certainwetlandsonitspropertyin North Little Rock, Arkansas. The Corps obtained aflowage easement over a portion of the property in thebargain. Petitioner was Secretary-Treasurer of Nomikanoduring thenegotiationswiththeCorps. Hethen acquired the property in 2000. Mr. MehaffysoughtapermitfromtheCorpsin2006tofillwetlandsin accordance with the 1970 agreement, but the Corpsdenied the application. Petitioner responded by filinga takings lawsuit against the United States becausethe Corpspermit denial prevented him fromdeveloping the property.The United States Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit affirmed dismissal of Petitioner’stakingsclaim. ThecourtheldthatMr.Mehaffylackedan investment-backed expectation to develop hisproperty, merely because he acquired the propertyafter Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA),which established the Corps permitting process. TheFederal Circuit concluded that this determination of Petitioner’s investment-backed expectations, basedonly on his apparent knowledge of the CWA,constituted a proper regulatory takings analysis.The questions presented are:1. NotwithstandingthisCourt’scontraryrulingin
 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York
,438 U.S. 104 (1978), may a court dismiss a propertyowners takings claim solely on the basis of adetermination that the owner lacked
 
iiinvestment-backed expectations to develop hisproperty?2. NotwithstandingthisCourt’scontraryrulingin
 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), may aproperty owner be found to lack investment-backedexpectations and thus be barred from challenging aland use restriction as a regulatory taking solelybecausetherestrictionwasenactedbeforeheacquiredthe property?

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)//-->