Opinion
2021-1131 2021-1132 2021-1133 2021-1134 2021-1135 2021-1136 2021-1137 2021-1138 2021-1139 2021-1140 2021-1142 2021-1143 2021-1144 2021-1145 2021-1146 2021-1147 2021-1148 2021-1151 2021-1152 2021-1155 2021-1157 2021-1159 2021-1161 2021-1162 2021-1163 2021-1164 2021-1165 2021-1167 2021-1171 2021-1172 2021-1173 2021-1174 2021-1175 2021-1176 2021-1177 2021-1178 2021-1184 2021-1186 2021-1187 2021-1188 2021-1189 2021-1190 2021-1192 2021-1193 2021-1195 2021-1196 2021-1197 2021-1198 2021-1199 2021-1200 2021-1201 2021-1204 2021-1205 2021-1206 2021-1207 2021-1208 2021-1214 2021-1215 2021-1216 2021-1217 2021-1218 2021-1220 2021-1221 2021-1222 2021-1223 2021-1224 2021-1225 2021-1230 2021-1231 2021-1232 2021-1233 2021-1234 2021-1237 2021-1238 2021-1239 2021-1240 2021-1241 2021-1242 2021-1243 2021-1244 2021-1250 2021-1251 2021-1252 2021-1253 2021-1254 2021-1255 2021-1256 2021-1268 2021-1269 2021-1270 2021-1271 2021-1272 2021-1273 2021-1274 2021-1275 2021-1276 2021-1277 2021-1279 2021-1280 2021-1281 2021-1282 2021-1283 2021-1284 2021-1285 2021-1286 2021-1287 2021-1288 2021-1289 2021-1290 2021-1291 2021-1293 2021-1294 2021-1295 2021-1296 2021-1302 2021-1303 2021-1304 2021-1305 2021-1306 2021-1307 2021-1308 2021-1309 2021-1310 2021-1311 2021-1312 2021-1313 2021-1314 2021-1315 2021-1316 2021-1317 2021-1318 2021-1319 2021-1320 2021-1322 2021-1324 2021-1325 2021-1335 2021-1336 2021-1337 2021-1338 2021-1339 2021-1341 2021-1394 2021-1398 2021-1403 2021-1404 2021-1405 2021-1406 2021-1407 2021-1427 2021-1429 2021-1431 2021-1444 2021-1455 2021-1464 2021-1465 2021-1467 2021-1468 2021-1472 2021-1479 2021-1481 2021-1482 2021-1483 2021-1492 2021-1494 2021-1499 2021-1513 2021-1529 2021-1539 2021-1540 2021-1541 2021-1847 2021-1889 2021-1890 2021-1891 2021-1894 2021-1947 2021-2047
07-11-2022
VIRGINIA MILTON AND ARNOLD MILTON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee TRAVELERS EXCESS AND SURPLUS LINES COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant
Decided: June 2, 2022
ERRATA
Please make the following change to page 14 of the panel opinion:
In other words, we leave it for the lower court to consider: (1) whether Appellants have shown that a temporary taking occurred under the test applicable to flooding cases, Ark. Game &Fish Comm'n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 39 (2012); (2) whether
Appellants have established causation when considering "the impact of the entirety of government actions that address the relevant risk," St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. United States, 887 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied 139 S.Ct. 796 (2019); and (3) whether the Government can invoke the necessity doctrine as a defense.
is changed to:
In other words, we leave it for the lower court to consider: (1) whether Appellants have shown that a temporary taking occurred under the test applicable to flooding cases, Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 39 (2012); (2) whether Appellants have shown that a permanent taking occurred; (3) whether Appellants have established causation when considering "the impact of the entirety of government actions that address the relevant risk," St. Bernard Par. Gov't v. United States, 887 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied 139 S.Ct. 796 (2019); and (4) whether the Government can invoke the necessity doctrine as a defense.