Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012)
The Takings Clause requires the government to provide compensation when it takes private property for public benefit. But does that apply when the government only temporarily interferes with property? Arkansas Game and Fish Commission versus United States considers this question.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission owned the Dave Donaldson Black River Wildlife Management Area, a wildlife preserve bordering the Black River. Hardwood oak trees within the Management Area provided an essential habitat for its wildlife. In nineteen forty eight, the United States Army Corps of Engineers constructed a dam upstream from the Management Area and created a manual establishing the varying rates of water it would release from the dam each season. The corps released water according to the manual until 1994. For the next six years, the corps deviated from the manual to facilitate longer harvests for local farms. It released water at a slower rate each fall, causing the lake behind the dam to swell. To compensate, the corps released water at a high rate for a longer period each spring and summer, causing unprecedented flooding in the Management Area during peak growing season for its trees. Most of the trees died and undesirable vegetation took over, making it nearly impossible for the trees to grow back without costly reclamation efforts. Because of this damage, the corps stopped deviating from the manual in two thousand one. The commission then sued the federal government seeking compensation for the destroyed trees. The commission argued that the temporary flooding amounted to a taking under the Fifth Amendment. The government argued that recognizing temporary flooding as a taking would inhibit any future flood control projects for the public’s benefit.
The Court of Federal Claims deemed the flooding as a taking and awarded compensation to the commission. The Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the flooding didn’t qualify as a taking because it wasn’t permanent or inevitably recurring. The Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/arkansa...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/arkansa...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel ► czcams.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries