× Didn't find what you were looking for? Ask a question
Top Posters
Since Sunday
y
2
m
2
m
2
u
2
m
2
B
2
M
2
e
2
k
2
N
2
y
2
m
2
New Topic  
dudenp22 dudenp22
wrote...
Posts: 307
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
In Hearts Bluff Game Ranch v. U.S., Hearts purchased a large piece of land that the Army Corps said could be used as mitigation property for wetlands purposes. Later, the state of Texas announced it was building a water reservoir that would put Hearts under water, so it could no longer be used for wetlands mitigation. Hearts sued for uncompensated taking as the property was more valuable for mitigation than under a reservoir. The appeals court held that:
 a. Texas would have to compensate Hearts for the value of the land as wetlands mitigation property, not as part of a reservoir
  b. the Army Corps would have to compensate Hearts for the difference in the value of the land for wetlands mitigation versus as part of reservoir property
  c. the EPA would have to compensate Hearts for the difference in the value of the land for wetlands mitigation versus as part of reservoir property
  d. the wetlands mitigation permit process was arbitrary and capricious, so nothing Hearts was told by theArmy Corp mattered and it had no rights to enforce
 e. none of the other choices
Read 136 times
1 Reply
Replies
Answer verified by a subject expert
Mmm23Mmm23
wrote...
Posts: 220
Rep: 0 0
6 years ago
Sign in or Sign up in seconds to unlock everything for free
1

Related Topics

dudenp22 Author
wrote...

6 years ago
This calls for a celebration Person Raising Both Hands in Celebration
wrote...

Yesterday
I appreciate what you did here, answered it right Smiling Face with Open Mouth
wrote...

2 hours ago
Thanks
New Topic      
Explore
Post your homework questions and get free online help from our incredible volunteers
  672 People Browsing
Related Images
  
 313
  
 219
  
 3817