Laserfiche WebLink
Services't�r' Mead Data Centra!, Cnc, ��* R <br /> 4 PAGE 14 <br /> t941 :Lt1,S. App. LEXIS 30233, X31 <br /> Fifth Amendment.. <br /> A physical occupation of private property by the :government which is ladjudged <br /> R*323 to be of a permanent:.nature is a taking, and that is true without regard. <br /> to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only iini al � <br /> °economic impact on the owner: Loretta v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Gbhp,, 45 <br /> 1.S. 419 (1'9821 (placement by authority of the government of cable, television <br /> :'(CATO cable and connect it3n boxes on the roof :of an apartment b din. was <br />` taking under the traditional °teStl . As Justice Marshall said in Loretta. " hen <br /> ;the physi+Cal intrusion reaches the extreme form of a permanent physicel <br /> Accupation, a taking h9S ocdurred. In such a case, the character of the <br /> `i�#overnment sctiow not only isl an important factor ;in resolvi" whether the <br /> action works a takinqbut also is determinative." Id, at 4;7�i, E <br /> In this context, '-.perCnanent-' :does not mean forever, or anything like tf <br /> t, Q <br /> taklnq can be far a lfmited: term -- what is ' taken' 15 in the lan ua Q reap ' <br /> , .. q q <br /> i property law.. an estate for years, that is, a term of finite duration as. <br /> distinct from ;the infinite term of an estate in fee st. "it resolute. le <br /> willed an estate for years, the term can be for less than a year. See geherally <br /> Gribbet, Principles 14333 x of the Law of Property 54: (3d ed. 1.969).1 <br /> 3 ' <br /> in United States v. General Motors Corp. , 323 U.S. 373 (1945) .,t:,tthe: <br /> 4overnment15 a°pptopriation of the unexpired term of a warehouse lease was a <br /> ,taking; the fact that it was .finite went to the determination of compensation <br /> Father than .to the question of whether a taking had occurred. Accord, United. <br /> t ,r States v. .Patter Motor Co. , 327 U.S. 372 t 1946? (f ederal government acquired th,00 i <br /> I ,r remainder of a lease for a building) r Kimball Laundry Co, v. United States, 338 <br /> Ul.S. 1 (1949) {federal government appropriated private business for public use <br /> Wing World War 11; a takingvi <br /> There I5 nothing 'temporary' about the wells the Government installed# on: <br /> Plaintiffs' property, in the sense in which we used it in referring to t1he ,. <br /> parked truck of the lunchtime visitor. Years have passed since the Government <br /> installed the first wells. The wells are some 100 feet deep, lined with plastic <br /> and stainless steep and surrounded by gravel and cement. Each well was: tapped <br /> with a cement casing lined with reinforcing steel bars, and enclosed by a <br /> m ilinq of steel :pipe set in cement. These surveillance wells are C*343 at <br /> least as 'permanent' in this sense as the CATV equipment in Loretto, which <br /> comprised only• a few cables attached by screws and nails :and a box attached by <br /> bolts. 458 U.S. at 422. Nothing in the Government's activities suggests that the <br /> Wells were a momentary excursion shortly to be withdrawn.,. and thus little More <br /> than a trespass. All Nor doei the Order or the Government's subsequent: actions <br /> disclose any ind%:cation of a 'timetable for <br /> withdrawal- <br /> rt11 Although not before the trial court at the time "i>t made :.its rulinq, it <br /> OW appears that ;additional welly have been installed pursuant to the <br /> Government's pzrgtiram., >so that:at the time this case was argued there were some <br /> 22 wells 0 Place. F <br /> _Y -End footnotes- _ _ _ . <br />! Part of the,difficu'lty here is the confusion that arises in the. case's and <br /> commentaries nvpr the use of the term ' temporary taking. nth; The argument In <br /> NEXISN: EXIS'LEXIS} <br /> i <br />