United States v. Acemoglu

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that if “the taking is unauthorized, the acts of defendant’s officers may be enjoinable, but they do not constitute taking effective to vest some kind of title in the government and entitlement to just compensation in the owner”
• explaining that a taking due to “the actual cutting off of access” can be found “without any ... physical invasion,” and citing several cases for the proposition
• finding a Tucker Act claim viable when Congress authorizes the government to take property
• finding authorization in an ambiguous context, arising from congressional intent shown by knowledge of the actions taken to acquire land for a missile range; the actions were illegal, but at the same time within the actors’ general scope of authority to take leasehold interests
• cattle grazing precluded by establishment of United States missile range as a permanent facility

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).