United States v. Buklerewicz

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 there is no proper showing that governmental action was the proximate and direct cause of the erosion damage, there can be no liability for a fifth amendment taking”
• stating that the plaintiffs’ burden of proof on their takings claims is a preponderance of the evidence
• stating that “the OHWM on a riverbank is a physical fact, subject to determination by inspection of the riverbank” (citation omitted
• observing that expert testimony “is particularly appropriate” where “the trier of fact is presented with evidence of a highly technical nature involving geo-technical, hydrologic, hydraulic, geological and climatic matters”
• finding no such causation in the context of governmental action vis-a-vis a raised level of water on a landowner’s property
• rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that they established causation by showing that “the erosion on their riverbanks was not a problem until after” the government constructed dams that impounded water

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).