We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Jerry Stouck Greenberg Traurig LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 6



Proper definition of the relevant property leads to a $7 million award in a takings case arising from denial of a wetlands fill permit *

- March 24 2014
A Florida company was awarded nearly $7 million by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on March 14 in a long-running case involving a claimed…

Co-authors: Caleb J. Holmes.


Supreme Court decision limits ability of government agencies to impose ‘extortionate’ permit conditions on landowners *

- June 27 2013
On June 25th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important Takings Clause decision with far‐reaching implications for real estate developers and others…

Co-authors: Kerri L. Barsh.


Dept of Energy liable for $150 million because it has not built a nuclear waste facility *

- May 21 2012
On May 18, in Yankee Atomic Elec Co. v. United States, the Federal Circuit affirmed a damages judgment of $142.6 million, and added $17.0 million to the judgment by granting a cross-appeal, in a breach of contract action against the government arising from the Department of Energy's failure to remove spent nuclear fuel from three reactor sites in New England.


Court reaffirms broad immunity for patent infinging government contractors - only recourse for patent holders is to sue government *

- April 4 2012
A March 14, 2012, decision of the Federal Circuit sitting en banc, Zoltek Corporation v. United States v. Lockheed Martin, confirmed the broad immunity that government contractors enjoy from claims of patent infringement during the performance of federal contracts.

Co-authors: Paul F. McQuade, Caitlin S. Kaprove.


Supreme Court broadens the types of federal agency actions that can be challenged in court *

- April 4 2012
The Supreme Court recently held, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, that “compliance orders” unilaterally issued by the EPA, which the agency contended were informal directives not subject to judicial review, qualify as “final” agency actions that can be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Co-authors: David B. Weinstein.


Next »