Vancamp v. Decision Hr 30, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that damage to plaintiffs property while in government custody did not convert an otherwise proper seizure into a taking
• holding that the subject of a criminal investigation did not state a takings claim even though a ruptured pipe at a government storage facility had rendered his property nearly worthless, and despite the fact that he was never indicted
• holding that the subject of a criminal investigation did not state a takings claim even though a ruptured pipe at a government storage facility had rendered his property nearly worthless, and despite the fact that he was never indicted
• no taking where property was retained and damaged over course of criminal investigation and ultimately returned to owner
• “[I]tems properly seized by the Government under its police power are not seized for ‘public use’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.”
• “The reason that these claims do not amount to a taking is because items properly seized by the government under its police power are not seized for ‘public use’ within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).