Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology

How courts have described this case

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

• noting no evidence that regulations “prohibit the appellant from making a profitable use of its property”
• noting no evidence that regulations “prohibit the appellant from making a profitable use of its property”
• observing it was “[n]ature,” and “not the State,” that “placed appellant’s property in the path of floods,” such that even without the challenged regulation “the property would still be subject to physical realities”
• observing it was “[n]ature,” and “not the State,” that “placed appellant’s property in the path of floods,” such that even without the challenged regulation “the property would still be subject to physical realities”
• prohibition against construction for human habitation within floodway was held a valid exercise of state police power and was not a “taking” or “damaging” of private property for public use
• “There is no physical invasion of appellant’s property.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).