failed to act in a reasonably prudent manner to protect and enforce rights, and when a perceived injustice to the defendant exists. See, e.g., AC. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed.Cir.1992) (en bane) (patent infringement claim may be barred under the doctrine of laches). Does the fact that the right sought to be enforced has its origin in the Constitution, rather than in a statutory grant, mean that there should be no limits imposed on its enforcement, either by legislature or courts? Plaintiffs so argue. They begin by drawing a distinction between what they call “common-law takings” and “eminent-domain takings.” Common-law takings, according to plaintiffs, include takings that arise from torts (non-contract wrongs) and contract wrongs 3d 1171 (Fed.Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Florida Rock Indtis., Inc. v. United States,
holding that denial of permit under section 404 of the clean water act was a taking holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act holding that clean water acts notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims