City Park For Everyone Coalition v. Federal Emergency

The trial court dismissed all claims. Because the plaintiffs' complaint had not cited to the Administrative Procedures Act, the LWCFA and NEPA claims were dismissed for lack of standing.

The court found that Schwent’s suit against the federal government sounded in takings so therefore the Court of Federal Claims had jurisdiction not the District Court and the nuisance claim against Willets was entirely based on state law and not federal law.

The trial court dismissed the equitable action for lack of jurisdiction and also dismissed the claim for damages, holding that the actions of the two Government agents were unauthorized. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

A successor landowner with record knowledge of the conservation easement sought rescission then filed federal and state takings claims. The District Court granted the County's motion to dismiss on the federal takings claim and remanded to state court to address the remaining state claims.

The trial court dismissed all landowner claims regarding public access for lack of standing, lack of timely notice under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, and for exceeding the statute of limitations. The landowners appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed.

Buyer filed a breach of contract suit against the City. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, finding that a binding contract did not exist because the City had not obtained the approval of the state legislature as required under the Act.

The trial court dismissed all claims. As for the quiet title action, the Association was held to lack standing because it did not hold any interest in the trail easement. The court also dismissed the public trust doctrine claim because the Town only held a non-exclusive trail easement, rather than a fee simple.

The court upheld Sierra Club's standing to sue on federal common law principles finding that the District acted in tandem with the ACE and thus was subject to both CWA and NEPA jurisdiction. The court rejected attempts to dismiss on ripeness, res judicata, and sovereign immunity grounds.

The small claims court dismissed the action for lack of standing, and the appellate court affirmed.

The First Circuit held that the Wildlife Restoration Act regulations give the USFWS discretion in how to respond to an alleged conversion of property funded by the Act. The Court also found no NEPA violation because federal officials did not have a duty to review the State's grant of the easements.