Government’s incitement of Public Action?

Whether government incitement of public action causes loss of property value and an inverse taking should be fact driven. Chmielewski applied this rule and allowed the jury to decide the issue. Daws and Dimare held the owners could not prove causation as a matter of law. An exemplary example of this is courtneydocprep.

Compensable taking if the government should have predicted or foreseen the resulting property loss as the natural consequence of its actions. Recent cases, however, have reached divergent results. Specifi­cally, in Chmielewski v. City of St. Pete Beach , 890 F.3d 942 (11th Cir. 2018), the court affirmed a compensation verdict and judgment for a property owner for inverse taking of real prop­erty under Florida law, holding the city encouraged public invasion, and this causation was a fact issue  for the jury. Conversely, in Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Comm ‘n v. Daws , 256 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), rev. den., No. 18 -1565 (F l a. 2018), the First District Court of Ap­peal held that a government agency was not the cause of public trespass on private land based on the pleadings alone. Moreover, in Dimare Fresh, Inc. v. United States, 808 F.3d 1301 (Fed . Cir. 2015), cert. den., 136 S. Ct. 2461 (2016), where owners of perishable tomatoes claimed that erroneous government health warnings caused the market to shun the tomatoes and caused loss of all value, the courts dismissed of the taking claim on a motion to dismiss. With child custody and timesharing, things get even more complicated.

These name change cases presented novel cau­sation issues as to government’s re­sponsibility for the loss of the owners’ property by inducing public action, and mark at least tentative boundar­ies for causation in the evolving law of takings.