U.S. 18, 22, 60 S.Ct. 413, 84 L.Ed. 554 (1940) (“[A]ction which constitutes the taking of property is within [the government’s] constitutional power and there is no ground for holding its agent liable who is simply acting under the authority thus validly conferred. The action of the agent is ‘the act of the government.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445, 465, 23 S.Ct. 349, 47 L.Ed. 539 (1903)); Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, 416 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.Cir.2005) (stating that “when separate corporate entities act for the United States, the United States is liable for their takings” and that “when state agencies act as agents of the United States, the United States may incur takings liability”); Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States, 373 F.3d 1177, 1196 (Fed.Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). As the Federal Circuit stated in Pre-seault,
holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where california officials acting under the authority of a federal order occupied land recognizing that stateimposed restrictions upon property may be attributed to the federal government for purposes of a takings analysis where the state officials acted as agents of the federal government or pursuant to federal authority holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where city of burlington acted under federal authority holding that a federal cause of action for damages arises upon a federal agents unconstitutional conduct