Drake et al v. Walton County, 6 So.3d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
The 1st DCA issued a clarifying opinion in this case clarifying that there were two different takings – a temporary taking and a later permanent taking – from the flooding of the property involved. The confusing facts are that the land was flooded, then made dry by drainage improvements and a dam installed by the County, then flooded again by later actions taken by the County, including removing the dam. Lesson: if the government creates private property, it must pay compensation if it later destroys that property.
Use the largest online attorney directory to quickly find detailed profiles of Florida lawyers and law firms in your area.
Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 7, 2009
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Payne v. Payne , a case in which the parties sought dissolution of a seventeen year m...
-
Federal Rule Violation If you have been charged with USCA0024 FEDERAL RULE VIOLATION you can call a Defense Attorney Tampa at 1-877-793-9290...
-
11th Circuit, 11th Schmircuit, that's what I always say. And I see I'm not alone. On Friday in the closely-watched Checking Overdraf...
-
I don't know, I feel like we're getting a little Frank Jimenez chronic here, and yet more news keeps breaking. Now it's this , i...
-
In the very long saga of Fort Lauderdale attorney Robert Ingham 's doomed representation of MCS against Essent Healthcare, Judge Seitz ...
-
Here is the Senate Judiciary Committee agenda (there was a live webcast too). From a well-placed source: He finished – no hard questions- ...
-
The Second District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday in Zambuto v. Zambuto , reversing the lower court’s ruling on two grounds. The District...
-
Here's an interesting opinion from Magistrate Judge Torres awarding defendants attorney's fees for opposing a copyright infringemen...
-
Our friend Glenn continues to pretend he's a lawyer, except now he's a top-notch US Attorney taking pot shots at the prosecutorial...
-
In Atlantic Shores v. 507 South Street Corporation, here's the link , the court held that an objecting neighbor could not litigate a hei...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét