to authority that supports their view of the law, something of which courts do have a fondness — though its absence here may be because the available authority is to the contrary. First, the premise. The hypothesized distinction between “common-law” takings and “eminent-domain takings” is a verbal joust without substance. The fundamental idea that there is a right for every wrong, the jurisprudential basis for torts and contract wrongs, arises from early common law decisions. See 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23, *109. Its application is universal, in the sense that such wrongs can be committed by private parties as well as by governments, although governments may be able to escape their duty to pay by hiding behind the sovereign immunity doctrine. The presence or ab 1999) (<HOLDING>); Preseault v. United States, 100 F.3d 1525
holding that government placement of groundwater monitoring wells was a taking holding that a cause of action for an unconstitutional taking accrues at the time the taking occurs holding that inverse condemnation claim challenging as a regulatory taking the states placement of a guard rail that blocked former access was not ripe for adjudication where owners had failed to apply for permit for alternative approach and it therefore was not possible to assess whether a taking had occurred as a result of a deprivation of all reasonable access holding medical monitoring claim was merely component of damages holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where city of burlington acted under federal authority