« Ind. Courts - Supreme Court denies petition for writ of mandamus | Main | Ind. Courts - Disciplinary Commission Panel to review complaint against Delaware County Prosecutor McKinney »

Friday, March 13, 2009

Courts - Seymour-based Rose Acre Farms takings judgment reversed by Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [Updated]

An opinion yesterday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a much litigated dispute, about which the ILB has posted occasionally (eg here, from 2004) - Rose Acre Farms v. United States. Here is the 46-page opinion. Some quotes:

In 1992, Rose Acre Farms, Inc. (“Rose Acre”) filed the present action in the United States Court of Federal Claims, claiming that United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA” or “the government”) regulations that restricted egg sales from its farms and caused the loss of egg-laying chickens that tested positive for the presence of salmonella bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In 2003, the trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations as well as for hens seized for testing. In our previous appeal, we held that the court misapplied the standards governing regulatory takings claims under Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). We vacated and remanded for appropriate reconsideration.

We must again decide whether the trial court correctly held that the government’s regulations, which restricted the sale of certain of Rose Acre’s eggs during the approximately two-year period, constituted a taking for which just compensation is due. As explained below, we hold that, upon a proper assessment of the Penn Central factors, the USDA did not commit a compensable taking. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims. Reversed.

[Updated at 10:30 AM] The Blog of Legal Times now has an entry on this decision, including a quote from a local attorney:
Geoffrey Slaughter, an Indianapolis partner in Taft Stettinius & Hollister, argued for Rose Acre. “We’re studying the decision and trying to understand its implications. It’s too early to know whether our client will rest with this result or press forward with this litigation,” Slaughter says.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 13, 2009 07:58 AM
Posted to Indiana Decisions