On Maui today to argue an eminent domain case, so haven’t had a chance to post up a new opinion. But in our down time between hearings and flights, we were able to do some reading of our colleagues’ stimulating blog posts. Check ’em out:
- Nebraska Supreme Court rules (or maybe not) on the validity of the approval of TransCanada XL pipeline route through Nebraska – Our Nebraska Owners’ Counsel of America colleague William Blake adds his thoughts about his state’s Supreme Court’s (non)decision in the TransCanada case. “The only thing that is clear,” Bill writes about the “lengthy and acrimonious opinion,” “is that not every pipeline can be granted the power of eminent domain.” We posted the decision here.
- Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways: Is there a Santa Clause in Virginia? A post on the New Jersey Condemnation Law blog, by our Owners’ Counsel colleague Joseph Grather, about the appeal pending before the Virginia Supreme Court in which the question is the admissiblity of the condemnor’s statement of value. We wrote about the issue here (we also filed an amicus brief in the case arguing for admissibility).
- Proposed Amendments to the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure – by Rebecca Copeland at Record on Appeal. Now’s the time to speak up if you have comments.
- Raising Issues of Statutory Compliance … And No Good Deed Goes Unpunished by Utah eminent domain lawyer Michelle Martin (“What happens when a condemnor offers to pay more for a taking than its appraiser found for damages? Most landowners would be pleased. In this case, the landowner apparently was not, claiming the condemnor failed to base its jurisdictional offer on the appraisal amount because the offer was higher than the appraisal. Thus, the argument was that the condemnor failed to follow the statutory requirement to provide an appraisal upon which the jurisdictional offer is based. The Court of Appeals was unimpressed.”).