Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
10 F.3d 796 · 1993
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Boise Cascade Corporation v. United States (2002), Anne Wyatt Eastern Minerals International Inc v. United States (2001)
13 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Minnesota District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 5 U.S.C. § 553 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council · Agins v. City of Tiburon · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A requirement that a person obtain a permit before engaging in a certain use of his or her property does not itself “take” the property in any sense: after all, the very existence of a permit system implies that permission may be granted, leaving the landowner free to use the property as desired. Moreover, even if the permit is denied, there may be other viable uses available to the owner. Only when a permit is denied and the effect of the denial is to prevent “economically viable” use of the land in question can it be said that a taking has occurred.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] Tucker Act suit does not lie for an executive taking not authorized by Congress, expressly or by implication. NBH Land Co. v. United States, 576 F.2d 317, 319 , 217 Ct.Cl. 41 (1978); see Southern Cal. Fin. Corp. v. United States, 634 F.2d 521, 523 , 225 Ct.Cl. 104 (1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 937 , 101 S.Ct. 2016 , 68 L.Ed.2d 324 (1981) (“[B]efore a compensable taking can be found by the court, there must be some congressional authorization, express or implied, for the particular taking claimed.”).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] claimant must concede the validity of the government action which is the basis of the taking claim to bring suit under the Tucker Act.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.