Search for: "United States v. Flood" Results 21 - 40 of 1,120
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Sep 2017, 9:31 am by Maseeh Moradi
Green Bay Co., 80 U.S. 166 (1872). [4] United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2012, 12:51 am by Robert Thomas (inversecondemnation.com)
United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), to review the Federal Circuit's conclusion that  flooding caused by the Corps of Engineers was only temporary, and even thought it destroyed trees owned by Arkansas, it was not a compensable taking merely because the flooding eventually stopped, and "at most created tort liablity. [read post]
30 Sep 2015, 4:20 am by Charles Mathis
DeGravelles of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, issued his Ruling and Order prohibiting a Write Your Own flood insurance carrier from denying payment for unrepaired prior damages on subsequent flood loss.1 As with the majority of National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) cases, Westmoreland v. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 8:43 am by Marc Mayerson
No one should be surprised that the United States Court of Appeals today reversed the decision of the Louisiana District Court on whether losses occasioned by rising water in New Orleans was the result of a "flood" and thus excluded from coverage under several different forms of "flood" exclusion. [read post]
2 Aug 2007, 8:43 am by Marc Mayerson
No one should be surprised that the United States Court of Appeals today reversed the decision of the Louisiana District Court on whether losses occasioned by rising water in New Orleans was the result of a "flood" and thus excluded from coverage under several different forms of "flood" exclusion. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 7:20 am by immigrationprof
From SCOTSUBlog, it appears that there will be some interesting amicus briefs filed in connection with the cert petition in United States v. [read post]
Contrary to this Court’s precedent, a sharply divided 2-1 panel ruled that the United States did not inflict a taking because its actions were not permanent and the flooding eventually stopped. [read post]