U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1970

Robert A. Katz, Trustee v. State of Connecticut and Howard S. Ives, State Highway Commissioner

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided November 5, 1970 · Moore, Smith, Anderson

433 F.2d 878 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Benson A. Snaider, Norwalk, Conn. (Robert A. Slavitt and Abraham D. Slavitt, Attys., Norwalk, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant., Clement J. Kiehuk, Asst. Atty. Gen. of Conn. (Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and Jack Rubin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., on the brief), for defendantsappellees.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision. The 12 that cite it most often are listed here.

Clifton C. Tang v. Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, and Honorable Justices Aron Steuer (1st Cir. 1974)
Bowser v. Resh (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Ben Lewis Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998)
Tucker v. Northeast Savings, F.A. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1987)
T. J. Fountain, Jr., Individually and Doing Business as Fountain Oil Company v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (11th Cir. 1982)
Mitchell v. National Broadcasting Co. (2d Cir. 1977)
Weston Funding Corp. v. Lafayette Towers, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
Textron, Inc. v. Wood (Conn. 1974)
Thistlethwaite v. City of New York (District Court, S.D. New York 1973)
Kaufman v. Somers Board of Education (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1973)
Porter v. Nossen (District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania 1973)
American Mannex Corporation v. Charlton P. Rozands, Etc. (5th Cir. 1972)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We affirm on the opinion of Judge Blumenfeld, 307 F.Supp. 480 in the District Court with this brief additional comment.

The appellant, Katz, at the trial before the State Referee, made the claim that the long delay by the State of Connecticut in taking the condemned property violated his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Federal Constitution which prohibited the taking of his property without just compensation. The State Referee denied this claim, as the district court noted, and granted Katz an exception, but Katz did not appeal this denial to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, as he could have. Instead, he started this federal question action in the United States District Court based on precisely the same claim.

At oral argument he cited as his authority for this maneuver Foster v. City of Detroit, Michigan, 405 F.2d 138 (6 Cir. 1968), not mentioned in his brief. That case is, however, inapposite because the claim of unconstitutional taking without just compensation was not adjudicated in the Michigan state court, and therefore there was no issue of res ad judicata. It also appears that at the time the federal action was brought, the state condemnation case had been withdrawn and the subsequent state condemnation action had not been commenced.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.