Now that we’ve decked the halls, its time to clear the decks: the end of 2011 is on the horizon, and in order to start 2012 off on a fresh note, here are opinions of interest lined up in our “to post” queue, but that we’ve not found the time to actually digest and post:
- MH New Investments, LLC v. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 5D10-2697 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2011) – plaintiff who owned license to use property is not entitled to claim business damages when the property is taken by eminent domain.
- 260 North 12th Street, LLC v. State of Wisconsin Dep’t of Transportation, No. 2009AP1557 (Wis. Dec. 22, 2011) – evidence of environmental contamination, disclosure of expert witnesses, and jury instructions in eminent domain trials. More here.
- Miller v. Glacier Development Co, L.L.C., No. 191,097 (Kan. Dec. 23, 2011) – “If the compensation finally awarded on appeal in an eminent domain proceeding is less than the amount of the appraisers’ award paid by the condemnor to the clerk of the district court, the judge shall enter judgment in favor of the condemnor for the return of the difference, with interest. If the appraisers’ award has been withdrawn from the clerk pursuant to the court’s order, as provided in K.S.A. 26-510(b), the distributee of the appraisers’ award shall be subject to the condemnor’s judgment for the return of the difference between the appraisers’ award and the final award on appeal.”
- Ybanez v. United States, No. 09-172L (Fed. Cl. Dec. 5, 2011) – measurement of just compensation in a rails-to-trails case: “Plaintiffs contend that the proper measure of compensation is the difference between values of their estates with railroad easements on them, and values with no easements or other hindrances. According to the Government, the railroad had not abandoned its easement before the NITU was issued; therefore, the railroad easement continued to burden plaintiffs’ property when the taking occurred. The proper measure of damages under defendant’s theory would be the difference between the value of plaintiffs’ property encumbered by a railroad easement and property encumbered by an easement for recreational trail use. We grant plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons discussed below.”
- Cadlerock Properties Joint Venture, L.P. v. Comm’r of Environmental Protection, No. AC 32864 (Conn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2011) – in an inverse condemnation action, the property owner did not prove that its property was uncontaminated.
- Armstrong v. County of Dixon, No. S10-235 (Neb. Oct. 28, 2011) – attorneys fees in inverse condemnation cases.
- Texas General Land Office v. Porretto, No. 01-09-00520-CV (Tex Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2011) – ownership of submerged and beachfront property.