767 Third Avenue Associates and Sage Realty Corporation v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a landlord did not have per se takings claim where the government did not physically occupy rental office units
• holding that lessor had no takings claim against United States for actions that caused lessees to terminate leases, and that the lessor’s “remedy, if any, lay against the [lessees], which defaulted on their lease obligations”
• concluding that “the government’s actions did not rise to the level of a per se Loretto- type physical taking” where the government posted notices restricting access but did not physically occupy the premises or prevent plaintiff from entering
• discussing Omnia Commercial Co., noting that the circumstances of that case were virtually indistinguishable from the ease before the Federal Circuit, and emphasizing that the government did not take any property interest
• stating: “[W]e conclude that [plaintiff! could not have had a reasonable expectation of non-interference from the United States government. That being so clearly the case, the other [Penn Central] factors need not be considered.”
• lessor cannot claim reasonable investment-backed expectations where it was on notice that government could and likely would act to freeze tenant's assets

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).