Jentgen v. United States
United States Court of Claims
657 F.2d 1210 (1981)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1971, James Jentgen (plaintiff) purchased a 101.8-acre parcel of land in Everglades, Florida, for $150,000. Jentgen planned to develop a residential community on the property that would have access to a waterway. The development project would necessitate dredging, filling, and the construction of a dock and marina. Jentgen’s proposed development was subjected to permitting requirements under federal environmental laws, including the Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act and the amended Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) administered permits under these laws. Between 1971 and 1973, the requirements to obtain a permit became more onerous in terms of ecological considerations. In 1973 and 1975, Jentgen applied for permits under these laws relating to 80 acres of his property. About 20 acres of Jentgen’s “upland” property could be developed without permits. As to the 80 acres that required permits, Jentgen proposed 60 acres for development and 20 acres to remain in their natural state. The Corps denied Jentgen’s request based on the proposed development’s adverse physical impacts on the wetlands but offered to grant development permits for over 20 of the 80 acres covered by the applications. Jentgen did not seek judicial review of the Corps’ decision. Instead, he filed a claim against the government (defendant) seeking $6 million in compensation for the alleged regulatory taking of his property. As restricted by environmental regulations, Jentgen’s property was valued between $80,000 and $150,000.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kunzig, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.