130:
24:
388:
The
Government must only put the owner in the place they were before the taking. Therefore, when the problem was not created by the Government but government intrusion was necessary to correct the problem for the benefit of the general public, it is not inequitable to balance against the harm caused
311:
In the damages trial, the court heard evidence of the value of the well site and access corridor easements, and whether or not the remaining property was harmed or benefited from the
Government's activity on their land. The court found that there were no compensable severance damages. The Court also
373:
The investigation benefit was a special benefit to the property because it was unique. The value of the special benefit was over $ 100,000. This amount outweighs the value of the land taken, therefore, once the special benefit is deducted from the value of the land taken, the landowners are not
294:
Upstream from the plaintiff's property there were some acid pits, which overflowed as a result of some heavy rain. The State of
California undertook to clean it up. The Government then entered upon the plaintiff's land, without consent and over their objection, for the purpose of sinking
302:
Fifty feet by 50 feet (15 by 15 m) of sink wells and a 16-foot-wide (4.9 m) easement were placed on the plaintiff's property. The testimony of the
Government found three types of special benefits: (1) investigatory, (2) characterization and remediation of contaminated water.
392:
The Court found that the property value was decreased from a reason separate and apart from the government activities. Further, the access order did not materially interfere with the subject property's daily use and did not result in damages.
357:
Federal Law permits offsetting the value of the part taken by any special benefit. Special benefits are those which inure specifically to the landowner who suffered the taking and are associated with the ownership of the remaining land.
364:
In cases of partial taking, just compensation includes the value of the part taken and the damage to the remainder resulting from the taking. Where the plaintiff bears the burden of proving severance damages to the remaining property.
489:
312:
found that the remaining property received "special benefits" which outweighed the value of the easement taken. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to no payment for just compensation.
140:
339:
They additionally argued the court determination that the special benefits as a result of the land taken was erroneous. Arguing, special benefits cannot offset the value of the
286:
After several attempts to begin, the court finally approved the claim as a good cause of action. The court of
Federal Claims was to determine what just compensation was due.
246:
221:
439:
336:
Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by basing value on the
Government's actual use instead of the Plaintiff scope of use permitted analysis.
346:
Further, plaintiff argues that the investigation benefit was a general benefit, because the intended beneficiaries were the properties downstream.
484:
129:
245:
This case is a good illustration of how there are different factors which determine the economic equivalent of the compensation due under the
88:
60:
107:
349:
Finally, the plaintiff contends that the government activities made their remaining property unmarketable or at least depreciated.
45:
38:
494:
67:
249:. This case uses both set off benefits and severance damages to help determine the amount of just compensation due to the
196:
74:
56:
34:
151:
Henry
Hendler, Paul Garrett and Tillie Goldring as Trustees for Henry Hendler and Irving Gronsky v. United States
457:
415:
172:
238:
for the
Federal Circuit found that although there was a taking, no compensation was due because the net
81:
448:
192:
389:
the landowner by the
Government's remedial action any special benefit which accrue to the land.
361:
The fact that others benefit from the government activities does not make the benefits general.
328:
Whether the plaintiff's are entitled to payment for their land taken under just compensation.
235:
478:
188:
23:
296:
275:
315:
Plaintiffs now appeal the determination of the amount of just compensation.
250:
380:
Therefore, no payment is required under just compensation for the taking.
377:
There were no proven severance damages to the remainder of the property.
340:
239:
466:
169:
17:
490:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases
234:, 175 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999), was a case where the
141:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
435:, 175 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999) is available from:
215:
207:
202:
184:
179:
164:
156:
146:
136:
122:
8:
128:
119:
108:Learn how and when to remove this message
402:
299:for monitoring ground water migration.
44:Please improve this article by adding
7:
211:Plager, joined by a unanimous court
14:
22:
374:entitled to just compensation.
485:1999 in United States case law
266:The Hendlers, the landowners.
1:
197:Raymond Charles Clevenger III
46:secondary or tertiary sources
511:
418: (Fed. Cir. 1999).
57:"Hendler v. United States"
220:
127:
433:Hendler v. United States
411:Hendler v. United States
231:Hendler v. United States
123:Hendler v. United States
495:Takings Clause case law
33:relies excessively on
416:175 F.3d 1374
270:Defendant/Respondent
222:U.S. Const. amend. V
262:Plaintiff/Appellant
193:Glenn L. Archer Jr.
227:
226:
118:
117:
110:
92:
502:
471:
465:
462:
456:
453:
447:
444:
438:
419:
413:
407:
253:after a taking.
236:Court of Appeals
180:Court membership
132:
120:
113:
106:
102:
99:
93:
91:
50:
26:
18:
510:
509:
505:
504:
503:
501:
500:
499:
475:
474:
469:
463:
460:
454:
451:
445:
442:
436:
428:
423:
422:
409:
408:
404:
399:
386:
371:
355:
334:
326:
321:
309:
292:
284:
272:
264:
259:
247:Fifth Amendment
114:
103:
97:
94:
51:
49:
43:
39:primary sources
27:
12:
11:
5:
508:
506:
498:
497:
492:
487:
477:
476:
473:
472:
449:Google Scholar
427:
426:External links
424:
421:
420:
401:
400:
398:
395:
385:
382:
370:
367:
354:
351:
333:
330:
325:
322:
320:
319:Legal analysis
317:
308:
305:
291:
288:
283:
280:
271:
268:
263:
260:
258:
255:
225:
224:
218:
217:
213:
212:
209:
205:
204:
200:
199:
186:
185:Judges sitting
182:
181:
177:
176:
166:
162:
161:
158:
154:
153:
148:
147:Full case name
144:
143:
138:
134:
133:
125:
124:
116:
115:
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
507:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
482:
480:
468:
459:
450:
441:
440:CourtListener
434:
430:
429:
425:
417:
412:
406:
403:
396:
394:
390:
383:
381:
378:
375:
368:
366:
362:
359:
352:
350:
347:
344:
342:
337:
331:
329:
323:
318:
316:
313:
307:Prior history
306:
304:
300:
298:
289:
287:
281:
279:
277:
274:The State of
269:
267:
261:
256:
254:
252:
248:
243:
241:
237:
233:
232:
223:
219:
214:
210:
206:
203:Case opinions
201:
198:
194:
190:
189:S. Jay Plager
187:
183:
178:
175:; 48 ERC 1545
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
139:
135:
131:
126:
121:
112:
109:
101:
90:
87:
83:
80:
76:
73:
69:
66:
62:
59: –
58:
54:
53:Find sources:
47:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
432:
410:
405:
391:
387:
379:
376:
372:
363:
360:
356:
348:
345:
338:
335:
327:
314:
310:
301:
293:
285:
273:
265:
244:
230:
229:
228:
216:Laws applied
160:May 11, 1999
150:
104:
95:
85:
78:
71:
64:
52:
32:
15:
242:were zero.
479:Categories
467:OpenJurist
397:References
282:Background
276:California
68:newspapers
35:references
384:Reasoning
251:landowner
165:Citations
98:July 2009
431:Text of
341:easement
208:Majority
343:taken.
257:Parties
240:damages
157:Decided
82:scholar
470:
464:
461:
458:Justia
455:
452:
446:
443:
437:
414:,
84:
77:
70:
63:
55:
332:Argue
324:Issue
297:wells
290:Facts
137:Court
89:JSTOR
75:books
369:Hold
353:Rule
173:1374
170:F.3d
168:175
61:news
37:to
481::
278:.
195:,
191:,
48:.
111:)
105:(
100:)
96:(
86:·
79:·
72:·
65:·
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
