K.N. v. Department of Children & Families

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 breached its contracts with plaintiffs before dismissing the plaintiffs’ alternative takings claims
• holding, in a case with analogous facts, that the plaintiffs “rested [their] claim on a contract light to prepayment that was substantially limited by subsequent legislation,” and that “[g]iven that contract right, plaintiffs’ recovery lies in a theory of breach, not takings”
• dismissing takings claims in the housing context on the grounds that plaintiffs were in privity of contract, in contrast to Cienega Gardens where they were not, so contract claims were viable
• dismissing takings claims in the housing context on the grounds that plaintiffs were in privity of contract, in contrast to Cienega Gardens where they were not, so contract claims were viable
• noting a takings claim may provide plaintiff relief where contract claim is ineffective
• dismissing takings claims in the housing context on the grounds that plaintiffs were in privity of contract, in contrast to Cienega Gardens [v. United States, 331 F.3d 1319, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2003)], where they were not, so contract claims were viable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).