Telzrow v. United States

Landgraf v US.pdf This is a Wetlands Reserve Program conservation easement with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The landowner sued NRCS for negligence and breach of contract regarding invasive brush dumping on his property. The Court denied NRCS’s motion to dismiss.

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.

The small claims court dismissed the action for lack of standing, and the appellate court 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 upheld the conservation easement and granted the Government's motion to dismiss, citing Mississippi statutory and common law to the effect that the conveyance of an interest greater than the grantor owns only nullifies the excess portion of the conveyance.

The court denied the land trust’s motion to dismiss because the easement required land trust to have a reasonable basis for refusing to give its consent for improvements on the property and the question of reasonableness required further development of the record.

The trial court dismissed all of buyer’s claims on the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), as the easement was recorded. The appellate court affirmed in part, upholding all of the claims sounding in misrepresentation and fraud but overturned the dismissal of the breach of covenant claim.

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 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.

In Lyme I, based on the evidence presented by LLCT that it was the same entity as that named on the conservation easement, the court denied the motion to dismiss on standing ground, but reserved for trial whether LLCT is, in fact, the holder of the easement.