Moerman v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that 1 “tule elk are not instrumentalities of the state nor controlled by the state, and 2 therefore, there has been no physical taking” of private property by the state
• \Courts faced with claims that a taking has occurred as a result of an invasion by wild animals have typically employed a regulatory taking analysis\
• in preventing landowner from disturbing protected tule elk on his property, the state was not requiring him to submit to government occupation
• “Clearly it is unreasonable to argue that because the animals were once eliminated from [the region] and driven to the brink of extinction, that they are now nothing more than a public improvement or pet, under the control of the state.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).