In Coleman v. Mississippi Transportation Comm’n, No. 2013-CA-01161-SCT, the Mississippi Supreme Court addressed an issue we’ve been pondering lately, holding that evidence of the condemnor’s initial appraisal, its offer, and its deposit, were admissible when its appraiser presented a lower valuation at trial. The appraiser was also subject to cross-examination about why he lowered
Fla App: Quick Take Deposit Only Vests Owner’s Right To Compensation, Not To Specific Funds
A short one from the Florida District Court of Appeals, Florida Dep’t of Transportation v. Mallards Cove, LLP, No. 2D13-181 (Mar. 6, 2015), a regulatory takings case that followed on the heels of a straight condemnation.
The DOT condemned property belonging to Mallards Cove via Florida’s quick take procedure, by which certain agencies may
Video: Report On Community Meeting On Property Rights And The Honolulu Rail
Weird headline from KITV. No, owners whose property is taken for the rail aren’t “profiting” if they are able to get more for their land than what the condemning agency offered; “just compensation and damages” are required by the constitution, and if they are able to obtain more, in many cases that still leaves them
“Eminent Domain Abuse” Turnaround In Idaho: Property Owner Liable For Condemnor’s Attorneys Fees For “Extreme And Unlikely” Appeal And Defenses
Have you ever read one of those opinions where each piece seems okay, but as a whole the result just doesn’t sit well? The Idaho Supreme Court’s opinion in State of Idaho, Dep’t of Transportation v. Grathol, No. 40168 (Feb. 11, 2015) is just one of those.
You’ve no doubt heard a lot about
Who Knew? The North Carolina Constitution Doesn’t Have A “Takings” Clause
This is the first of two posts today out of the Tar Heel State (here is the other one).
North Carolina lawyers no doubt knew this, but we can’t say that we did: the North Carolina Constitution currently does not have a provision that mirrors the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.
According to these
Californians: Upcoming Eminent Domain Seminar, March 5, 2015 (And It’s Free!)
If you are a “public agency staff, an appraiser, or a right-of-way consultant” (or, we presume, a lawyer) in California, check this out: a free half-day seminar on eminent domain issues in Costa Mesa on Thursday, March 5, 2015, presented by the Nossaman law firm, the guys who produce the California Eminent Domain
Links From Day Two, ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference
Here are the links from our opening sessions this morning:
- “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail — its roof may shake — the wind may blow through it — the storm may enter — the rain may enter — but
ALI-CLE 2015 Eminent Domain Conference: Links From Today’s Presentation
Here are the cases which I spoke about this morning at the 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation conference:
- Brandt: Supreme Court benchslap on Rails-to-Trails
- Utah: You might have a public use problem if your only reason for taking excess property is that you wanted to avoid litigating severance damages
- Fourth
The Chicago Way: City Taking Non-Blighted Property For Economic Development Was Not Pretextual Because … Studies
This is a longer post, but since we think this case may be going further and is worth watching, we’re going to hit it up in some detail.
In City of Chicago v. Eychaner, No. 05L050792 (Jan. 21, 2015), the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the taking of private vacant land near the Chicago Loop (Eychaner’s
Back To The Future With The Connecticut Court Of Appeals: Prospective Purchaser Cannot Testify As Expert About Valuation
Here at invesecondemnation.com, we do our best to bring you timely decisons on cases of interest from around the nation and the world. But today we’ve outdone ourselves, because we have an opinion from the Connecticut Court of Appeals, issued … next week: Dep’t of Transportation v. Cheriha, LLC, No. 155AP144