Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> Services Mead Hata Central, Ina <br /> 3+-- <br /> PAGE 7 <br /> �i 1991 t1,.S� App.. L.EXIS 3OZ331, *i3 <br /> whether there !had been a taking by Ptlysical Occupation -_: the court wanted to. <br /> I [knave more ahout the Governmenvs loge range intentions, and <br />! ( ) the activities. .of the estate Of California were not attributable to. iiia 1 <br /> r �Uflv tment, for purposes of' takings law. <br /> The Governntent'S.. V tion for summary judgment was gnranted :on points one and ; <br /> (three. point two was :left. for trial the plaintiffs' month for mammary <br /> lodgment on the issue: Ctf taking by physical occupation was denied. <br /> Both before and after the trial court's disposition of the summary +judt��emt. <br /> motions in HeAdlerI, the discovery skirmishes can tfnued.•.8oth parties coti <br /> nnued ; <br /> f to engage ih.: discovery throughout the brief ing period prior to F(eindlier I`. Qn ' <br /> pecennbit 5:, 1985, the. clai ns Court granted the Government's first amat od to. <br /> ,coarpel answers to: its interrogatories. The Government believed pla111ti'fft <br /> 1*esponsas to be inadequate and on March 2'5, 1986 again moved to compel. answers <br /> .;C*141 to Ilk interrpga`torI , <br /> On: January;l4, 1987, the court again granted a Governimeot motion to: compel ! <br /> ianswe:rs to interrogatories. On March 16, 1987, the. Government mored to dismiss <br /> plaintiffs' suit for failure to comply with the January %1,4. order.. Plaintiffs <br /> ubmi tted their responses on March 25. The Government found the respansas <br /> t' Inadeauate and again sought dismissal, On April 30, tine .court issued a "l rd <br /> €-order 'to comp l a full response to the Government's interrogatories, Plaint"iffs <br /> responded on May 14 and againnthe Government deemed the responses inadequate.. On <br /> �iMa y 26, the Gflvernment again filed a motion to dismiss. € <br /> Discovery closed August 14, 1987. OnOctober 21, 1987, now before a new <br /> �,judge, the parties argued the motion to dismiss. On September 16, 1988, <br /> plaintiffs 'moved to suspend the proceedings on the basis of new information <br /> iAndicatinq that the Government intended to install. extraction wells on the <br /> property.rTheGavernment objected and moved for sanctions. <br /> { In december 1989, over two years after the motion was argued, the judge <br /> granted the Gove=rnment's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 37, br ngin this <br /> ;.'acrimonious procedural fray to an abrupt halt. Hendler 'Il. a <br /> A 1*153 man's home may be his castle, but that does not keep the <br /> ;Government from taking it. As an incident to its sovereignty,, the Government had <br /> khe authority take private property for a public purpose. In England,! where, <br /> tho e Kind did so, payment for what was taken was, at least before Mana arta;r a <br /> sometime thing, and largely at the discretion of the sovereign. See-1. .p:1 <br /> NicholS, The Law of Eminent Domain 8 Z (1917) .. In the United-States, the <br /> Constitution does not leave that issue to the sovereign 's q€aod will. The. ringing <br /> ph rases: of the fifth Amendment conclude with the simple statement: "nor :h l. <br /> private p operty be taken for public use, without gust compe"Sation." U1. <br /> ,Const. amend. V. <br /> At ;the time of the writing of the Constitution and foi;r many years thereafter <br /> 'a government takinq meant exactly that -- the Gove,tnmtht would physfcally occuiaV <br /> J. <br /> hits I.and. 11 Che Government needed a place for a military base, or for a� <br /> building to hduse a •government office or activity, that was a publicpurpas.e foir <br /> Ifni cfr a gcnvernment takirnq; was authorized upon payment o. }just.. compensetiacin <br />