Court Opinion

ID: 9636597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:34:44.560215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:47.220451
License: Public Domain

Markell, J.,
delivered the following concurring opinion.
I concur in the decision of the court' and in the opinion that there was no taking, though that question is not necessary to a decision. I also agree with Judge Marbury that the remedy for a wrongful taking would not be *623mandamus, but an action for damages. Whether under the Taylor case and others an action could now be maintained for damages without taking is a question not now before us.
On Motion for Clarification of Opinion Per Curiam.
On consideration of the motion for a clarification of the opinion herein, we have concluded that the question whether or not there has been a taking of the property is not necessary for our decision. We therefore withdraw the opinion expressed that there has not been a taking, and rest our conclusion upon the use of the wrong remedy, i.e., that mandamus does not lie.