Lloyd A. Good, Jr. 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.

• recognizing that “[i]n view of the regulatory climate that existed when appellant acquired the property, he could not have had a reasonable expectation that he would receive approval to fill ten acres of wetlands in order to develop the land.”
• finding that in light of growing public consciousness and sensitivity on issue, owner must have been aware that the standards and conditions governing the issuance of permits could change to his detriment
• stating that “the concurring opinion in Suitum underscores the Court’s reaffirmance of the Penn Central holding that the value of TDRs is to be considered to answer the threshold question of whether a taking has occurred.”
• noting status of Just line of cases as a background principle of state law is unclear
• affirming grant of summary judgment for Government on plaintiffs regulatory takings claim on ground that, as a matter of law, plaintiff lacked reasonable investment-backed expectations
• using the value at sale of transferable development rights to determine no taking had occurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).