113 Fed. Cl. 277
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- The Hages sued the United States in 1991 alleging Fifth Amendment takings of water and other property, and a claim under 43 U.S.C. § 1752(g) for range improvements. Litigation spanned two decades with multiple CFC opinions resolving liability and damages issues.
- In 2010 the trial court (CFC) entered final judgment awarding the Hage estates $14,243,542 and ordered the case closed. The Clerk entered judgment pursuant to RCFC 58.
- Both parties appealed; on July 26, 2012 the Federal Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court denied rehearing; the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
- After remand, the Hage estates asked for a hearing, expedited briefing, and appointment of the former trial judge as special master, arguing unresolved takings issues remained (physical vs. regulatory takings; water-rights impacts; fence-related takings; and law-of-the-case concerns).
- The government argued the Federal Circuit resolved all claims and the case should be dismissed and closed. The CFC (Sweeney, J.) concluded the Federal Circuit and prior CFC rulings left nothing for further adjudication and denied the Hages’ motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unresolved takings issues remain to be litigated on remand | Hage: Federal Circuit did not reverse most trial findings; factual and legal issues (physical vs. regulatory takings; fence impacts; water access) remain and warrant further proceedings | U.S.: Federal Circuit decision resolved the claims; nothing remains to adjudicate and the case should be dismissed | Held: No further proceedings required; Federal Circuit ruling resolved claims and remand did not call for additional factfinding |
| Ripeness of regulatory takings and §1752(g) claims | Hage: Government actions caused regulatory takings and entitle them to compensation under §1752(g) | U.S.: Claims were unripe for failure to exhaust administrative remedies (permit/Secretary determinations) | Held: Claims are unripe (Federal Circuit); CFC’s award for range improvements vacated for failure to exhaust administrative remedies |
| Timeliness of claims based on fences erected in 1981–1982 | Hage: Fence construction contributed to taking | U.S.: Claims based on 1981–1982 fences are time-barred by 6-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501) | Held: Claims relying on 1981–1982 fences are untimely (Federal Circuit) |
| Whether physical taking was proven for fences erected 1988–1990 | Hage: Construction of fences physically took water rights by preventing access | U.S.: No evidence that government actions actually deprived Hages of water they could put to beneficial use | Held: Reversed CFC on fences 1988–1990 — insufficient evidence that water was taken that Hages could have used |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (appellate decision reversing, vacating, and affirming parts of CFC judgment and identifying ripeness and timeliness defects)
- Colvin Cattle Co. v. United States, 468 F.3d 803 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (ripeness / administrative exhaustion for claims under §1752(g) and related takings law)
- Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (res judicata bars relitigation of matters decided or that could have been raised)
- Baldwin v. Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 283 U.S. 522 (U.S. 1931) (purpose of finality in litigation and res judicata)
- Jet Inc. v. Sewage Aeration Sys., 223 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (transactional test for claim preclusion)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1984) (claim preclusion encompasses matters that should have been advanced earlier)
- Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1052 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (elements required to establish res judicata)