context: In the court's view, it does not seem reasonable to impute to plaintiff an interpreta tion of the CWA that clearly was in flux at the time the land in question was purchased.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 49 Fed.Cl. 269, 269
citation_a.parenthetical: reaching the same conclusion as to an individual who had purchased property in 1971, stating that "[w]hile the Penn Central analysis anticipates reasonably foreseeable developments, it does not require a property owner to be clairvoyant"
citation_a.sentence: See Walcek, 49 Fed.Cl. at 269 (reaching the same conclusion as to an individual who had purchased property in 1971, stating that “[w]hile the Penn Central analysis anticipates reasonably foreseeable developments, it does not require a property owner to be clairvoyant”); see also Deltona, 657 F.2d at 1191 (suggesting that the events described above had “radically transformed” the regulatory regime, working an “unforeseen change in the law”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 657 F.2d 1191, 1191
citation_b.parenthetical: suggesting that the events described above had "radically transformed" the regulatory regime, working an "unforeseen change in the law"
citation_b.sentence: See Walcek, 49 Fed.Cl. at 269 (reaching the same conclusion as to an individual who had purchased property in 1971, stating that “[w]hile the Penn Central analysis anticipates reasonably foreseeable developments, it does not require a property owner to be clairvoyant”); see also Deltona, 657 F.2d at 1191 (suggesting that the events described above had “radically transformed” the regulatory regime, working an “unforeseen change in the law”).