Here is the opinion in McGuire v. United States.
McGuire Opening Brief
Federal Appellee Brief
Jerry McGuire leased a plot of farmland in Arizona from the Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT”) with the approval of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). He filed this Fifth Amendment regulatory takings claim after the BIA removed a bridge that he used to access portions of the leased property. McGuire does not claim that removal of the bridge was itself a taking, but rather that the BIA’s alleged refusal to authorize replacement of the bridge was a taking of his property rights. After trial the Court of Federal Claims (the “Claims Court”) denied McGuire’s regulatory takings claim. McGuire appeals. Because we hold that McGuire’s regulatory takings claim never ripened and that, even if McGuire’s claim had ripened, he had no cognizable property interest, we affirm.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in McGuire in United States:
A prior related opinion (denying the govt’s motion for summary J) is here.
Here is the opinion in McGuire v. United States (Fed. Cl.): McGuire v. United States
Jerry McGuire brought this inverse condemnation claim nine years ago in a federal bankruptcy proceeding in district court in Arizona. He alleges that the government took his leased property by removing a bridge he used to access the northern portion of the property. He thus demands more than $2 million in compensation. After a trial and appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that exclusive jurisdiction over the merits of McGuire’s claim rests in the United States Court of Federal Claims.McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit therefore remanded the case with instructions to transfer it here, and this Court received it on June 10, 2009.
* * *
For the above stated reasons, the government’s Motion To Dismiss is DENIED, and the government’s Motion For Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Issues of material fact exist as to whether a legally cognizable property interest exists for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, as to whether a taking by loss of access occurred, and as to whether a regulatory taking occurred under Penn Central. 438 U.S. at 124. The Court, however, finds that summary judgment for defendant is proper on the issue of McGuire’s claim for a categorical taking under Lucas. 505 U.S. at 1015. The Clerk is directed to act in accordance with the Court’s ruling.