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
Missouri App: Can One Municipality Take Another’s Property? We Don’t Think So, But We’re Not Certain
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District v. City of Bellefontaine, No. ED101713 (Feb. 24, 2015), is another one of those cases where construction by a city resulted in damage to property. The water district sued for inverse condemnation, among other things. Only twist here was that it wasn’t exactly “private” property, but property owned by another municipality
2d Cir: Amtrak SOL On Claim Its Property Immune From NY’s Eminent Domain Power
The State of New York wants to build the Bronx River Greenway, a “23-mile-long ribbon of green with a multi-use path that will extend along the full length of the river in Westchester County and the Bronx.” Who could argue with that?
Amtrak, that’s who. After failing to acquire 6 parcels along the river
Tex App: Trial Court Cannot Determine Power To Take Until After Commissioners Determine Value
A short one from the Texas Court of Appeals. As we noted in this post recently, Texas has bifurcated its eminent domain process. After a petition in condemnation is filed in court, in the “administrative” phase, the court appoints commissioners whose job it is to hold a hearing and render an opinion on value.
Property Owners Invited: Honolulu Rail Project Public Informational Meeting, Thursday, March 5, 2015, Farrington High School
[To reserve your space, please email your RSVP to me or Mark, or call either of us at (808) 531-8031.]
On Thursday, March 5, 2015, from 6:00 – 7:15 p.m. at the Farrington High School Cafeteria (1564 North King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii), we’re inviting property owners, businesses, and residents whose rights
Tex App: Pipeline Isn’t A Common Carrier With Power Of Eminent Domain Just Because Post-Taking It Might Transport Others’ CO2
Here’s the latest pipeline takings case from Texas.
This one has been to the Texas Supreme Court before (see our post “‘Common Carrier’ Claim Subject To Actual Judicial Review“). That decision required trial courts to make an actual and factual inquiry into a claim that a pipeline company is a common carrier with
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
9th Circuit Oral Arguments: Reg Takings, Private Takings, Due Process … And Williamson County
Yesterday, we were able to attend the Ninth Circuit oral arguments in a case which we posted on last month, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749.
In that case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint filed by the owner of a wine country
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