Don Applegate and Gayle Applegate (For Themselves and a Class of Others Similarly Situated, Totalling 271) 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.

• stating that a taking by a gradual physical process does not invoke the continuing claim doctrine
• stating that a taking by a gradual physical process does not invoke the continuing claim doctrine
• holding that where landowners “had no way to determine the extent . . . of the permanent physical occupation” of their property because of uncertainty regarding the government’s promise to prevent erosion, the “uncertainty [stayed] accrual of the claim”
• concluding the statute of limitations did not run because the government’s promise to restore the land made the landowners justifiably uncertain about the permanency of the taking
• holding Government’s promises to restore sand pre- vented stabilization of very gradual physical taking be- cause “the landowners did not know when or if their land would be permanently destroyed.”
• finding “the landowners remain justifiably uncertain about the permanency of the erosion and the taking” because of the government’s promise to mitigate

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).