the assault landing strip. Those overflights, according to plaintiffs, commenced in August 2005 and ended in November 2008. Plaintiffs have not argued that the temporary increase in activities at Dobbins due to hurricane response efforts between August 30, 2005 and November 2, 2005 effected a temporary taking during that two-month period. The court notes, however, that such a brief interference with the use and enjoyment of plaintiffs’ property does not rise to the level of a compensable taking. In Ridge Line, Inc. v. United States, 346 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2003), the Federal Circuit held that a takings claimant “must establish that treatment under takings law, as opposed to tort law, is appropriate under the circumstances.” In determining whether an invasion of priva Ct.Cl.1973) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs must satisfy both prongs of the
holding that permitting a state official to proceed with a highway project despite alleged nepa violations by federal participants in the project would make a sham of the reconsideration required by federal law holding that in order to support a fifth amendment taking via inverse condemnation there must be not only a federal activity or project which is permanent in nature but that such activity or project must impose on private property certain consequences which are themselves permanent and that their recurrence is inevitable even if only intermittent holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity holding that a plaintiffs retaliation claim is cognizable even in the absence of protected activity as long as his employer perceived him to be engaged in such activity holding that where the first amendment does not protect a certain activity there can be no first amendment right of association to engage in that activity