| PAUL CONTI v. U.S. (5022 words) |
 | Conti’s argument that the limitation on the use of his property that was imposed by the ban on drift gillnet fishing resulted in a taking of that property. |
| Conti is asserting a property interest in the government’s discretionary decision not to exercise its explicitly granted authority to revoke, suspend, or modify the permit. |
| Conti’s ability to use his vessel and gear to catch swordfish using drift gillnets in the Atlantic Swordfish Fishery was dependent upon a permit that was revocable at all times and that, as we have seen, did not constitute a property right for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. |
Feeds |
Contact