This could be your view, winging your way to San Francisco in a couple of weeks, to join us for the 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference (and the concurrent Condemnation 101 program), at the Hotel Nikko, February 5-7, 2015.
There’s still a few spaces left, and time to register. We’re the
It’s been accepted for such a long time that it’s become one of those things that “everyone knows we’ve always done it that way,” but most probably don’t quite know why that is so: if you have to sue the United States for a regulatory taking or inverse condemnation, you go to the
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:
Here’s the property owners’ Reply Brief in Ramsey v. Commissioner of Highways, a case currently pending before the Virginia Supreme Court.
This is the case about Virginia’s statutory requirements in eminent domain cases. As
a prerequisite to a court exercising jurisdiction over a condemnation complaint, a state condemning agency must as an initial step
Despite its caption, the opinion of the Texas Supreme Court in Wheeler v. Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas), L.P., No. 13-0234 (Aug. 29, 2014) isn’t another one of those can-they-or-can’t-they pipeline cases.
But it’s a case that takings mavens might find intersting anyway, because the court sets out how a property owner is
Under Nebraska eminent domain law, the condemnor is required to make a “good faith” effort to negotiate with the property owner before it files an eminent domain action. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 76-704.01(6).
In Camden v. Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District, No. A-13-266 (Aug. 26, 2014), the court concluded that the
Clark v. Titus County, No. 06-14-00035 (Sep. 19, 2014) is a somewhat civil procedure oriented opinion, specifically about Texas’ “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. But it’s a condemnation case, and there’s some good background from the court about the eminent domain process in Texas courts and how appraisers calculate fair market value.
Under Texas
In City of Westerville v. Taylor, No. 13AP-806 (Aug. 12, 2014), the Ohio Court of Appeals concluded that it didn’t matter what professed “plans” the city had the property it took from Taylor, only that the city had taken fee simple absolute title.
As part of a highway project, the city condemned a
St. Charles Land Co. II, LLC v. City of New Orleans, No. 14-CA-101 (Dec. 23, 2014), involved the amount of compensation in an inverse case over 8.08 acres of New Orleans land used for the extension of an airport runway. The trial court determined just compensation at $30,740.
Here’s the heart of the opinion:
Most of you already know that under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, the fees expended by a property owner to recover just compensation are not recoverable as part of just compensation. That has never made much sense to us, for how does a condemnor fulfill its obligation to put the property owner in as good