Skip to main content
Court of Claims· 5/14/1992

Formanek v. United States

Citations

  • 26 Cl. Ct. 332
  • 22 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20893
  • 35 ERC (BNA) 1406
  • 1992 U.S. Claims LEXIS 217
  • 1992 WL 102477

How courts have described this case

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

  • ruling Comprehensive Plan did not adversely affect landowners’ proposed project and therefore did not affect landowners’ proffered highest and best use for purposes of pre-taking valuation
  • applying the Contract Disputes Act rate set forth in 41 U.S.C. § 611
  • applying the Contract Disputes Act rate set forth in 41 U.S.C. § 611
  • applying the Contract Disputes Act rate set forth in 41 U.S.C. § 611
  • rejecting proffered uses that were “convenient arguments rather than feasible alternatives”
  • “Notwithstanding the property’s designation as a nature preservation area in the city’s Comprehensive Plan, the court concludes that plaintiffs could have developed the property into a light industrial park in accordance with the city’s zoning ordinance____”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Robinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Formanek v. United States

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.