United States v. Dickinson

holding that if erosion caused by taking was preventable, plaintiff could recover costs to prevent further erosion | holding that takings claims are subject to six-year civil- action statute of limitations under federal statute | holding that a claim does not accrue “as soon as [the property owner’s] land is invaded” because of the “uncertainty of the damage” | holding that a tak- ing by flooding had occurred even though the owner had since “reclaimed” most of the taken land | holding that when the Government takes property by flooding it, the Government is also liable for the cost of protective measures by landowners in preventing erosion caused by raised water levels | holding that a landowner may “postpon[e] suit until the situation becomes stabilized.” | holding that when the Government takes property by flooding it, the Government is also liable for the cost of protective measures by landowners in preventing erosion caused by raised water levels | holding that the situation must be “stabilized” before a takings claim can accrue | holding taking accrued not when landowners were notified that dam would flood property but when lands were actually flooded | holding that a landowner may "postpon[e] suit until the situation becomes stabilized." | holding that “no use to which [plaintiff] could subsequently put the property by his reclamation efforts changed the fact that the land was taken when it was taken and an obligation to pay for it then arose” | explaining that the government could have fixed the date of taking by instituting appropriate condemnation proceedings | holding that flooding of property resulted in a taking | reasoning that plaintiffs claim did not accrue until the flooding had stabilized and damages could be certain | providing that the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the challenged government actions have stabilized. | holding takings claim had not accrued when landowners were notified that a dam would flood their property but when lands were actually flooded | holding claim for flooding did not accrue “as soon as” land was first subject to intermittent flooding in light of the “uncertainty of the damage” (i.e., taking) | flooding of claimant’s land was a taking even though claimant successfully “reclaimed most of his land which the Government originally took by flooding” | recognizing the difficulty property owners have when faced with “the onus of determining the decisive moment in the process . . . when the fact of taking could no longer be in controversy” | affirming a lower court's finding that the federal government took an easement by inverse condemnation when its dam caused intermittent flooding | affirming a lower court’s finding that the federal government took -an easement by inverse condemnation when its dam caused intermittent flooding | stating that the law may treat gradual physical takings as claims that have not accrued until they have “stabilized,” such that “the consequences of [the taking] have so manifested themselves that a final ac- count may be struck” | discouraging a strict application of accrual principles in cases involving Fifth Amendment takings by continuous physical processes | applying a six-year statute of limitations to a claim under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment | taking can occur when owner’s use of property is curtailed to an extent that a servitude has over the course of time been acquired | finding a taking where the landowners’ property was flooded due to the government’s action in raising the level of a river | discussing accrual principles where a parcel of land was flooded by a new dam and the government did not condemn the property | finding a taking although the plaintiff reclaimed most of the land that the government had flooded | finding a taking although the plaintiff reclaimed most of the land that the government had flooded | allowing claim by owner who acquired interest after gradual takings events commenced | finding a taking