Mississippi County, Missouri v. United States
130 Fed. Cl. 772
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Mississippi County, Missouri owns and maintains certain county roads (including County Roads 301, 302, 304, 307, 340) near Birds Point Levee.
- In May 2011 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) intentionally breached the Birds Point Levee and later transported heavy loads (clay and sand) over county roads while repairing the levee.
- Plaintiff alleges USACE’s heavy trucks caused substantial roadway damage (crevasses, depressions, large ruts, disintegration of portions) and that the county undertook temporary mitigation to keep roads passable.
- Mississippi County sued under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause seeking compensation for the alleged physical taking of its roads; defendant moved to dismiss under RCFC 12(b)(6).
- The court accepted the county’s factual allegations as true for the motion to dismiss but evaluated whether those facts stated a cognizable takings claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether county has a cognizable property interest in the roads | County owns and maintains the roads and thus has a property interest allowing a takings claim | County ownership and maintenance do not create a takings claim absent a compensable invasion | Held: County has a cognizable property interest (claimant meets first prong) |
| Whether USACE’s use of trucks constituted a physical taking | Tire traffic and resulting damage amount to a physical invasion or superinduced addition that impaired road usefulness | Use of public roads by USACE trucks was not an unlawful invasion; damage did not effectively destroy or impair usefulness | Held: No taking — presence of trucks on public roads not an unlawful invasion and alleged damage did not rise to level of constitutionally compensable physical taking |
| Whether alleged damage rendered roads unusable or required rerouting | County alleges significant damage and temporary mitigation to keep roads passable | Defendant notes county did not allege rerouting, closures, or loss of use; roads remained passable | Held: Allegations insufficient — no allegation that road usefulness was effectively destroyed or impaired |
| Whether tort claims remain despite dismissal of takings claim | County may argue for recovery under tort principles for property damage | Government argues Tucker Act jurisdiction excludes tort claims in this court | Held: Court’s decision does not address tort liability; tort claims (if any) are outside Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (physical invasion and effect on usefulness can constitute a taking)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (defining physical takings and takings analysis)
- Casitas Mun. Water Dist. v. United States, 543 F.3d 1276 (small physical invasions can constitute a taking)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (context on regulatory takings and scope)
- Adams v. United States, 391 F.3d 1212 (two-part takings test: property interest and government action constituting a taking)
- Sarpy County v. United States, 386 F.2d 453 (governmental unit responsible for highways has sufficient property interest to sue)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard to survive motion to dismiss)