.thumb.png.e60782c41643ce5723a9b2d854723dc5.png)
-
Member Statistics
45,896
Total Members1,837
Most Online
-
Posts
-
Looking back at the exact wording, it seems like you are correct and it was the concrete barriers that were the ultimate problem. I mentioned it in my last comment, even if it was just the barriers, did Texas take his property? I think a case like US v. Causby might go a long way to proving his case. Causby had an egg farm and during World War II, the US government started flying four engine heavy bombers for the war effort, low over his farm at full power. The extremely loud noise killed a bunch of his chickens and caused many of the rest of them to quit laying eggs. Even though he legally still on the property, he sued, saying that the federal government had effectively “taken” the use of his property from him. The US Supreme Court sided with him, saying that for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment, the federal government had indeed taken away the use of his property. It wasn’t intentional but that didn’t matter. It seems like this case would fall somewhere along those lines. -
That might have added to it but it said that they intentionally raised the roadway to help it act as a dam. Even if it was the dividers and no intent, did the state “take” his property without compensation? I think that it is interesting that a local landowner fought his case all the way to the US Supreme Court and won in a unanimous decision. So while he has not won his case yet, he won the right to have his day in court and possibly heard by a jury.
-
-
and I thought it was the concrete dividers used for construction lanes that caused the water to be dammed. I guess I missed something. -
Yeah I remember the pictures of the water piled up on the north side of the highway, it was bad.
-
-
Topics
-
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.