United States v. Shipman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the government’s construction of a pair of dams that resulted in the subsurface flooding of riparian and non-riparian land beyond the ordinary high water line of a navigable river was not protected by the navigational servitude
• distinguishing between torts and takings; noting that “Government-induced flooding not proved to be inevitably recurring occupies the category of mere consequential injury, or tort”
• finding that taking of a flowage easement was a natural consequence of government’s release of dam waters where “defendant anticipated the creation of a delta and a rise in the groundwater elevations in the areas”
• distinguishing between torts and takings; noting that government-induced flooding not proved to be inevitably recurring constitutes merely a tort
• finding a date of taking for a permanent flowage easement after five years of intermittent flooding
• setting the date of taking as November 30, 1973, but noting that the relevant flooding “stretch[ed] back to 1969,” when the first flood occurred

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).