Court Opinion

ID: 6499102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-11 16:00:57.203937+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:12.698440
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-1131   Document: 127   Page: 1   Filed: 07/11/2022

    United States Court of Appeals
        for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                      July 11, 2022

                       ERRATA
                 ______________________

 Appeal Nos. 2021-1131, 2021-1132, 2021-1133, 2021-1134,
 2021-1135, 2021-1136, 2021-1137, 2021-1138, 2021-1139,
 2021-1140, 2021-1142, 2021-1143, 2021-1144, 2021-1145,
 2021-1146, 2021-1147, 2021-1148, 2021-1151, 2021-1152,
 2021-1155, 2021-1157, 2021-1159, 2021-1161, 2021-1162,
 2021-1163, 2021-1164, 2021-1165, 2021-1167, 2021-1171,
 2021-1172, 2021-1173, 2021-1174, 2021-1175, 2021-1176,
 2021-1177, 2021-1178, 2021-1184, 2021-1186, 2021-1187,
 2021-1188, 2021-1189, 2021-1190, 2021-1192, 2021-1193,
 2021-1195, 2021-1196, 2021-1197, 2021-1198, 2021-1199,
 2021-1200, 2021-1201, 2021-1204, 2021-1205, 2021-1206,
 2021-1207, 2021-1208, 2021-1214, 2021-1215, 2021-1216,
 2021-1217, 2021-1218, 2021-1220, 2021-1221, 2021-1222,
 2021-1223, 2021-1224, 2021-1225, 2021-1230, 2021-1231,
 2021-1232, 2021-1233, 2021-1234, 2021-1237, 2021-1238,
 2021-1239, 2021-1240, 2021-1241, 2021-1242, 2021-1243,
 2021-1244, 2021-1250, 2021-1251, 2021-1252, 2021-1253,
 2021-1254, 2021-1255, 2021-1256, 2021-1268, 2021-1269,
 2021-1270, 2021-1271, 2021-1272, 2021-1273, 2021-1274,
 2021-1275, 2021-1276, 2021-1277, 2021-1279, 2021-1280,
 2021-1281, 2021-1282, 2021-1283, 2021-1284, 2021-1285,
 2021-1286, 2021-1287, 2021-1288, 2021-1289, 2021-1290,
 2021-1291, 2021-1293, 2021-1294, 2021-1295, 2021-1296,
 2021-1302, 2021-1303, 2021-1304, 2021-1305, 2021-1306,
 2021-1307, 2021-1308, 2021-1309, 2021-1310, 2021-1311,
 2021-1312, 2021-1313, 2021-1314, 2021-1315, 2021-1316,
 2021-1317, 2021-1318, 2021-1319, 2021-1320, 2021-1322,
Case: 21-1131    Document: 127     Page: 2    Filed: 07/11/2022

 2                                               MILTON   v. US

 2021-1324, 2021-1325, 2021-1335, 2021-1336,      2021-1337,
 2021-1338, 2021-1339, 2021-1341, 2021-1394,      2021-1398,
 2021-1403, 2021-1404, 2021-1405, 2021-1406,      2021-1407,
 2021-1427, 2021-1429, 2021-1431, 2021-1444,      2021-1455,
 2021-1464, 2021-1465, 2021-1467, 2021-1468,      2021-1472,
 2021-1479, 2021-1481, 2021-1482, 2021-1483,      2021-1492,
 2021-1494, 2021-1499, 2021-1513, 2021-1529,      2021-1539,
 2021-1540, 2021-1541, 2021-1847, 2021-1889,      2021-1890,
 2021-1891, 2021-1894, 2021-1947, 2021-2047
                 ______________________

     VIRGINIA MILTON AND ARNOLD MILTON, ON
     BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER
       SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, ET AL.,
                 Plaintiffs-Appellants

     TRAVELERS EXCESS AND SURPLUS LINES
                  COMPANY,
               Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

                     UNITED STATES,
                     Defendant-Appellee
                   ______________________

                    Decided: June 2, 2022
                    Precedential Opinion
                   ______________________

 Please make the following change to page 14 of the panel
 opinion:
     In other words, we leave it for the lower court to
     consider: (1) whether Appellants have shown that
     a temporary taking occurred under the test appli-
     cable to flooding cases, Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n
     v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 39 (2012); (2) whether
Case: 21-1131     Document: 127    Page: 3    Filed: 07/11/2022

 MILTON   v. US                                              3

     Appellants have established causation when con-
     sidering “the impact of the entirety of government
     actions that address the relevant risk,” St. Bernard
     Par. Gov’t v. United States, 887 F.3d 1354, 1364
     (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied 139 S. Ct. 796 (2019);
     and (3) whether the Government can invoke the ne-
     cessity doctrine as a defense.
 is changed to:
     In other words, we leave it for the lower court to
     consider: (1) whether Appellants have shown that
     a temporary taking occurred under the test appli-
     cable to flooding cases, Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n
     v. United States, 568 U.S. 23, 39 (2012); (2) whether
     Appellants have shown that a permanent taking
     occurred; (3) whether Appellants have established
     causation when considering “the impact of the en-
     tirety of government actions that address the rele-
     vant risk,” St. Bernard Par. Gov’t v. United States,
     887 F.3d 1354, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2018), cert. denied
     139 S. Ct. 796 (2019); and (4) whether the Govern-
     ment can invoke the necessity doctrine as a de-
     fense.