Schwent v. United States
Source
Author
About This Legal Opinion
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.
Membership Required
This resource is a Land Trust Alliance member benefit for the staff, board and volunteers of land trust and affiliate member organizations, and Alliance donors at the Protector level.
968 Franklin Manor LLC v. Anne Arundel Cnty. Office of Planning
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.
City Park For Everyone Coalition v. Federal Emergency
The court dismissed the NEPA claims against NOCPIA, finding that nonfederal parties are generally not subject to the statute. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law public trust claim. The NEPA claims against FEMA still remain.
North Dakota v. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ND statutes that restricted the federal government's ability to acquire permanent conservation easements over wetlands for migratory waterfowl, holding that the statutes were hostile to federal law and that protecting waterfowl habitat was a national interest.
Welty v. United States
The Court of Federal Claims dismissed Welty's suit on a 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim, and Welty appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that Given's participation in the CRP and his decision to construct the levees was voluntary and thus there was no taking.
Rodgers v. Vilsack
The trial court dismissed the suit in favor of the United States, finding that Rodgers' violations of the easement were so clear that there was no true title dispute, and therefore no jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act.
United States v. Ponte
The court held that a 100-foot setback zone was to be measured horizontally, not vertically (over the face of the Earth), based on Maine common law. The court entered a default judgment for the United States, requiring the removal of the platform.
Bruzewicz v. United States tax court opinion
The District Court ruled for the IRS on summary judgment, holding that the failure to comply with I.R.C. § 170(f)(8) was, in and of itself, fatal to the deduction claim. The court rejected substantial compliance.
Benson v. Russell’s Cuthand Creek Ranch, Ltd.
The Bensons contended that a levee system built by DU on the Russell property was causing flooding and erosion on their property. The federal court held that DU was acting under the direction of NRCS and that jurisdiction before the federal court was proper.
Werner et al. v. United States
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.
Madden v. The Nature Conservancy
The federal district court, citing a Montana Supreme Court holding, held that conservation servitudes in gross may be created by reservation under Montana law. The court also rejected plaintiff's other technical arguments that the deed language creating the servitude was insufficient.