Huntleigh USA 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.

• holding that Government action having the effect of frustrating plaintiff’s “business expectations . . . does not form the basis of a cognizable takings claim.”
• holding that “Omnia foreclosed the existence of a compensable taking” under similar circumstances
• rejecting takings claim where “the government has not appropriated for its own use any property owned by Huntleigh”
• stating that Air Pegasus of D.C., Inc. “is indistinguishable from this case because in both Air Pegasus [of D.C., Inc.] and this case the party alleging a taking, rather than having its own property taken, saw its business interests frustrated by governmental regulation of third parties”
• in turn quoting American Pelagic Fishing Co. v. United States, 379 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
• no direct taking even where congressional action rendered the going concern value of the plaintiff’s business “worthless”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).