Adam Paul Eannarino v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the government’s failure to maintain or modify a channel, and its decision to not armor or repair erosion to the banks, was not a taking
• noting that “a takings liability arises from an ‘authorized activity’” and collecting cases demonstrating that “government liability has uniformly been based on affirmative acts by the government or its agent”
• rejecting takings claim based on flooding allegedly caused by the Government’s failure to properly construct and maintain a navigation channel
• finding real and immediate risk of future flooding based on a severe flood six years prior and intermittent flooding after
• takings claims must be based “on affirmative government acts,” and the government cannot be liable for a mere “failure to act.”
• discussing In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 696 F.3d 436, 449–454 (5th Cir. 2012), and noting that the Fifth Circuit held that “the government was immune from liability under the discretionary-function exception of the FTCA”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).