Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brief for the United States in Opposition, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (Nov. 25, 2013)

Brief for the United States in Opposition, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (Nov. 25, 2013)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,850|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5
Brief for the United States in Opposition, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (Nov. 25, 2013)
Brief for the United States in Opposition, Mehaffy v. United States, No. 12-1416 (Nov. 25, 2013)

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Nov 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

04/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
No. 12-1416
 In the Supreme Court of the United States
 
M
IKE
M
EHAFFY
,
 PETITIONER
v.
 U
NITED
S
TATES OF
 A 
MERICA 
ON PETITION FOR A WRITOF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS  FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION
D
ONALD
B.
 
 V 
ERRILLI
,
 
J
R
.
 Solicitor General Counsel of Record
R
OBERT
G.
 
D
REHER
 
 Acting Assistant Attorney General
M
 ATTHEW
L
ITTLETON
 
 Attorney  Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001  SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov (202) 514-2217
 
 (I)
QUESTIONS
 
PRESENTED
Petitioner contends that the United States took his property by regulation in violation of the Just Compen-sation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The questions presented are as follows: 1.
 
 Whether the court of appeals held, contrary to its own precedent and that of this Court, that a preexisting regulatory restriction on petitioner’s use of his property
ipso facto
 defeated his argument that he had a reasona-ble, investment-backed expectation of developing the property in a manner inconsistent with the restriction. 2. Whether the force of the reasonable, investment-backed expectations factor in the analysis under
 Penn Central Transportation Co.
 v.
 New York City
, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), can be so overwhelming as to defeat a claim of a partial regulatory taking.
 
 (III)
TABLE
 
OF
 
CONTENTS
PageOpinions below ................................................................................ 1 Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 Statement ......................................................................................... 1  Argument ......................................................................................... 6 Conclusion ...................................................................................... 13
TABLE
 
OF
 
AUTHORITIES
Cases:
 Appolo Fuels, Inc.
 v.
 United States
, 381 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1188 (2005) ........... 8
Concrete Pipe & Prods. of Cal., Inc.
 v.
 Construction  Laborers Pension Trust
, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) ................... 12
 Koontz
 v.
 St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist.
, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013) ............................................................ 11
 Nollan
 v.
 California Coastal Comm’n
, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) ...................................................................................... 11
 Palazzolo
 v.
 Rhode Island
, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) .................... 7
 Penn Central Transp. Co.
 v.
 New York City
, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) ................................................................................. 4
 Philip Morris, Inc.
 v.
 Reilly
, 312 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2002) ................................................................................... 8, 12
 Rith Energy, Inc.
 v.
 United States
, 270 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 958 (2001) ...................... 8
 Ruckelshaus
 v.
 Monsanto Co.
, 467 U.S. 986 (1984) ............ 11
  Santini
 v.
 Connecticut Hazardous Waste Mgmt.  Serv.
, 342 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 875 (2004) ............................................................... 12
  Schooner Harbor Ventures, Inc.
 v.
 United States
, 569 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................. 8
United States
 v.
 Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.
, 474 U.S. 121 (1985) ............................................................. 2, 9
 

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)//-->