Here's a short one from the Florida District Court of Appeal where the background might be more relevant to today's circumstances than the court's actual holding about which party bears the burden of proof on valuation (and goes first at trial).
First, the decision. In Florida Dep't of Agriculture v. Mahon, No. 5D19-3102 (Apr. 9, 2020), the court held that in during the valuation phase (which comes after the trial judge determined there was a taking), the government bears the burden of proof and makes its presentation to the jury first. The court rejected the Department's argument that, hey, in an inverse condemnation case the property owner is the plaintiff, and the usual rule in every other civil case is that plaintiffs go first. Making us go first here would deprive the Department of due process!
Not so, held the court of appeal, government goes first in an eminent domain case, and it goes first in an inverse case. The court based its conclusion on the rationale that an inverse case is "an action to essentially compel the governmental entity to bring an eminent domain action to award compensation to the property owner." Slip op. at 6.
Applying this observation here, Mahon has sued the Department to compel it to do what it could or should have done initially—bring an eminent domain action to take his citrus trees and fruit and to compensate him for doing so. Had the Department done so, then it would have had the burden of going forward at trial regarding the valuation to be placed on Mahon’s destroyed trees. If dissatisfied with the jury’s verdict and the subsequent final judgment entered, then, much like in an eminent domain case, the Department would have the right to plenary appeal to seek relief from any reversible error committed.
Id.
Now, the timely background. Mahon, the owner of a citrus nursery, brought an inverse claim after the Department ordered him to stop selling citrus trees or fruit to stop the spread of citrus canker. As we know, in Florida, a property owner may raise an inverse condemnation claim if the state "in the exercise of police power to prevent . citrus canker, instead destroys otherwise healthy citrus trees." Slip op. at 2. Given our recent posts on "police power" and the government's power to respond to disease (even if that disease affects only citrus trees), Mahon is a good reminder that even in times of emergency, the usual rules don't get tossed aside.
Florida Dep't of Agriculture v. Mahon, No. 5D19-3102 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2020)
