January 2015

In 118th Street Kenosha, LLC v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Transportation, No. 2012AP2784 (Dec. 10, 2014), a condemnation case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered these three issues:

(1) Is a temporary limited easement compensable under Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6g)?

(2) Assuming that a temporary limited easement is compensable under Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6g), did the circuit court appropriately exercise its discretion when it excluded evidence of the commercial property’s diminution in value from lost direct access and proximity to 118th Avenue because the temporary limited easement did not cause the loss?

(3) Is the LLC barred from recovering compensation for the commercial property’s loss of direct access and proximity to 118th Avenue because the relocation of 118th Avenue was a proper exercise of the DOT’s police power?

The crux of the issue before this court is whether damages under Wis. Stat. § 32.09(6g) for the temporary limited easement include the commercial property’s diminution in value caused by its loss of direct access

Continue Reading Wisconsin: No Compensation For Loss Of Access Because Lost Access Not “Direct”

We didn’t quite finish posting all of the 2014 cases in our “for the blog” folder before the ball dropped, so we’re going to use the next couple of days to clear that queue.

Short postings, little analysis. But we’ll start 2015 off clean, we will.

First up, Buck’s Inc. v. City of Omaha, No. A-13-980 (Nov. 25, 2014), in which the Nebraska Court of Appeals held that a property owner had no inverse condemnation claim when road improvements eliminated a cut in the median, which prevented left turns into the property, because the property continued to enjoy access, just not in the same manner as before. 

Buck’s, Inc. v. City of Omaha, No. A-13-980 (Neb. App. Nov. 25, 2014)

Continue Reading Nebraska App: Cutting Off One Access Point OK, Since Property Had Others