This one asks a question that has been kicking around in the lower courts for a long time, and has long bothered we who represent property owners who have to eat the often-massive losses to a business which come about as a direct result of eminent domain (and which condemning agencies and the courts almost invariably determine are "consequential" losses, not compensable.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (1949), held that "an exercise of the power of eminent domain which has the inevitable effect of depriving the owner of the going-concern value of his business is a compensable 'taking' of property," and you would think that would take care of the question of whether such losses are part of just compensation. But that's not the way that many courts -- here, the Louisiana Supreme Court -- see that case.
Here's the Question Presented:
Whether the government must pay compensation under the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the condemnation of real property inevitably destroys the value of a business as a going concern (as the high courts of Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania have held) or whether property owners are entitled to such compensation only if the government directly takes the business itself (as the court below held, joining the Federal Circuit and the highest courts of the District of Columbia, Montana, and Wisconsin).
Information about the 40th Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, TX, Feb. 1-4,2023 (and the 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015 Scottsdale, Online, Nashville, Palm Springs, Charleston, San Diego, Austin, and San Francisco Conferences)
This blog is not legal advice. But come on man, you knew that already! Reading this blog does not make you a client, nor are any posts or comments on this blog subject to the attorney-client privilege. Nor should you rely on the posts or comments for counsel on your situation. For legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This blog is not sponsored by the author's firm, and the views expressed by the author are just that, his views; they are not the views of his clients, his firm or its clients, or anyone but the author.