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
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Brief Amicus Curiae of Owners' Counsel of America, Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, No. 11-597 )July 5, 2012)

Brief Amicus Curiae of Owners' Counsel of America, Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, No. 11-597 )July 5, 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,252|Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Jul 05, 2012
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. 11-597
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
--------------------------------- ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION,
 Petitioner,
v.UNITED STATES,
 Respondent.
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
On Writ Of Certiorari To TheUnited States Court Of AppealsFor The Federal Circuit
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OFOWNERS’ COUNSEL OF AMERICAIN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER
---------------------------------
---------------------------------R
OBERT
H. T
HOMAS
 
Counsel of Record
 D
 AMON
EY
L
EONG
 
UPCHAK 
H
 ASTERT
 1003 Bishop StreetHonolulu, Hawaii 96813(808) 531-8031rht@hawaiilawyer.comB
RANDON
K.M
OFFITT
M
ICHAEL
B. P
HILLIPS
 M
OFFITT
& P
HILLIPS
, PLLC300 S. Spring StreetSuite 500Little Rock, Arkansas 72201(501) 255-7406
 
Counsel for Amicus CuriaeOwners’ Counsel of America
================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
 
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
 Petitioner Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, aconstitutional entity of the State of Arkansas, sought just compensation from the United States under theTakings Clause of the Fifth Amendment for physi-cally taking its bottomland hardwood timber throughsix consecutive years of protested flooding during thesensitive growing season. The Court of FederalClaims awarded $5.7 million, finding that the ArmyCorps of Engineers’ actions foreseeably destroyed anddegraded more than 18 million board feet of timber,left habitat unable to regenerate, and preemptedPetitioner’s use and enjoyment. The Federal Circuit,with its unique jurisdiction over takings claims, re-versed the trial judgment on a single point of law.Contrary to this Court’s precedent, a sharply divided2-1 panel ruled that the United States did not inflicta taking because its actions were not permanent andthe flooding eventually stopped. The Federal Circuitdenied rehearing en banc in a fractured 7-4 vote. Thequestion presented is:Whether government actions that impose recur-ring flood invasions must continue permanently totake property within the meaning of the TakingsClause.
 
iiTABLE OF CONTENTSPageIDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUSCURIAE ............................................................ 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 5CONCLUSION ..................................................... 12

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)//-->