Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

It’s Friday, so we’re slacking a bit on the blogging. But our colleagues at the Nossaman firm have given us a couple of good pieces for our reading enjoyment.

  • First is “9th Circ. Simplifies Enviro Process For Transit Projects,” by Robert D. Thornton. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the lawyer who represented the City and County of Honolulu in its succcessful defense of a federal lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit and the District Court recently sided with the City on the project (see our summary of the Ninth Circuit and the District Court rulings), and the plaintiffs have stated that they are not going to seek further review. In other words, this is probably the final substantive chapter in the major legal challenges to the Honolulu rail project. Mr. Thornton notes that the decision is one “of national importance for transit and highway projects” because

…
Continue Reading Worth Reading – The Last Word On Honolulu Rail, And 2013 Eminent Domain Year In Review

This is a longer post, but we think it’s worthy of your time. That’s because even though there’s a lot going on in the opinion by the California Court of Appeal in Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court, No. C067758 (Mar. 13, 2014), it cuts through much of the unnecessary doctrinal fog surrounding takings law, especially the U.S. Supreme Court’s bizarre ripeness requirement first enunciated in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985).

The Bottom Line

Although the entire thing is worth reading (44 pages of majority opinion, followed by 46 pages of dissent), if we had to pick out one passage as the takeaway, here it is: 

Eminent domain authority must be exercised in strict conformity to the constitutional protections and procedures that limit its operation. If a condemnor intends to take private property or intends to perform actions that will result…

Continue Reading Cal App States The Inconvenient Truth: There’s No Substitute For Eminent Domain – Gov’t Must Condemn First If It Wants To Enter Land

In addition to the initial media coverage of and commentary about the Supreme Court’s 8-1 decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, No. 12-1173 (Mar. 10, 2014) rendered earlier this week, there has been more, mostly focused on the final lines of Justice Sotomayor’s solo dissent:

By changing course today, the Court undermines the legality of thousands of miles of former rights of way that the public now enjoys as means of transportation and recreation. And lawsuits challenging the conversion of former rails to recreational trails alone may well cost American taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Dissent at 8 (emphasis added).

What she was getting at, of course, was the fact — not stated anywhere in the majority opinion but made clear by the amicus briefs — that by holding that the interest granted was only an easement and did not revert to the United States…

Continue Reading Brandt: No Free Ride For Rails-To-Trails

Here’s another one we’ve been meaning to post for a while. In Ex parte Alabama Dep’t of Transportation, No.1101439 (Dec. 6, 2013), the Alabama Supreme Court concluded that inverse condemnation is the right cause of action when the government causes contaminated water to enter an owner’s property, resulting in (alleged) damage. 

The plaintiff alleged that ALDOT used a chemical solvent or degreaser that was poured into sewers and eventually found its way into the groundwater which it pumped onto the plaintiff’s property. It sued ALDOT and Cooper (ALDOT’s director) for trespass and inverse condemnation, and later added a claim for fraud and bad faith. The owner asserted that if ALDOT wanted to use its property as a storage for its contaminated water, it should have condemned a drainage easement first. The defendants asserted they were immune, and when the trial court refused to dismiss the case, they sought a writ…

Continue Reading Alabama: Recovering Compensation When The Govt Floods Your Land With Contaminated Water Is Just What Inverse Condemnation Is For

Here’s one that we meant to post earlier, but slipped through the cracks.

In Oklahoma eminent domain actions, the issue of valuation is first presented to a board of three commissioners (“disinterested landowners”) from the county in which the condemned property is located. The commissioners report to the court, and if one party doesn’t care for the recommended compensation, the party may demand a jury trial. 

In Independent School District v Taylor, No.110,709 (Nov. 27, 2013), the Oklahoma Court of Appeals held that a jury in such a case is entitled to hear evidence regarding value, even if the commissioners did not consider it. In that case, the commissioners recommended a value, but after a trial, the jury came back in with a higher award after the owner introduced evidence about the value of a billboard lease which had not been presented to the commissioners. The trial court granted the…

Continue Reading Nichols On Eminent Domain: Oklahoma Appeals Court Upholds Jury Rights In Condemnation

Yesterday, according to the coconut wireless, was the official last day on the Hawaii Supreme Court for Associate Justice Simeon Acoba. State court justices and judges face mandatory retirement at age 70, and Justice Acoba’s birthday is coming up in March.

While time marched on, so did the process for selecting his successor on the court. Governor Abercrombie has nominated a circuit court (trial) judge, and the Senate Judiciary has scheduled a hearing on the confirmation for next week. Le roi est mort, vive le roi.

While his body of work is large, we didn’t want to let this moment pass without singling out three opinions authored by Justice Acoba: the first a 3-2 majority opinion in favor of property owners, the other a 2-justice dissent in a case involving a municipality’s power to sue itself, and a final stand-alone dissent. The first two, as you may already…

Continue Reading Aloha, Justice Acoba

Our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague William Blake, a partner in the Lincoln  office of Nebraska law firm Baylor Evnen, has put up a guest post on OCA’s Eminent Domain Law Blog about the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline that recently saw a Nebraska trial court invalidating a state statute as unconstitutional. 

Bill writes:

The recent Keystone XL decision by Lancaster County District Judge Stephanie Stacy (a former partner of this author), is being cast in that mold, but in the process, the litigation is somewhat misunderstood. The ruling is 50 pages long with almost 250 footnotes, and is written in the style of a law review article. The misunderstanding is probably excusable, but it is not an eminent domain case. Eminent domain is only a side effect, and really not much of a side effect. The driving issue has always been the environment, whether the pipeline is going…

Continue Reading TransCanada XL In Nebraska: “Not An Eminent Domain Case”

Here’s the Answer Brief on the Merits, filed last week in the California Supreme Court in City of Perris v. Stamper.

That’s the case in which the court is considering whether, in the context of determining just compensation, the judge or the jury gets to decide whether a city’s exaction is something that is so reasonably likely to happen that it can be taken into account. That, of course, raises the Nollan/Dolan issue, and although this seems like a question of law, the California Court of Appeal concluded that, on the whole, the jury gets this one. We reported on the Court of Appeal decision here.

This brief responds to the Opening Brief, filed last month by the City (and posted here), which argues that the issue is one reserved solely to judges.  The Answer Brief makes two points:

  • The court can solve this case

…
Continue Reading Answering Brief In Stamper: Jury Decides Nollan/Dolan When A Factor In Compensation

Here’s the Opening Brief on the Merits, filed last month in a very interesting and important case now pending in the California Supreme Court, City of Perris v. Stamper. 

Update: Answering Brief posted here. 

We reported on the Court of Appeal decision here. The court held that that in a condemnation action, the jury gets to determine the reasonable probability that the City would successfully assert that its dedication of property requirement would mean that the property taken could be acquired essentially for free. The court concluded that even though Nollan/Dolan issues are involved, the jury determines this issue because “issues surrounding the dedication requirement are essential to the determination of ‘just compensation’ and therefore must be “ascertained by a jury.'” 

The city condemned a portion of Stamper’s industrially-zoned vacant land in order to realign and widen an adjacent road. Its deposit was based on the use of…

Continue Reading Cal S. Ct. Brief: In Determining Compensation, Judge, Not Jury, Determines Reasonable Probability Of Nollan/Dolan Exaction

One portion of the federal Uniform Relocation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4651, requires Federal agencies participating in projects requiring the acquisition of private property to be guided by certain policies that “assure consistent treatment for owners . . . and . . . .promote public confidence in Federal land acquisition practices,” such as (and we’re paraphrasing here), do it as quickly as possible, try to get it by negotation, don’t use condemnation to leverage a lower negotiated price, and so forth. 

These policies apply to state and local condemnors when their projects involve federal funding, and in Clear Sky Car Wash LLC v. City of Chesapeake, No. 13-1492 (4th Cir. Feb. 21, 2014), the owner whose property was being condemned by the Virginia Department of Transportation asserted VDOT was not following the rules. VDOT instituted a “quick take” eminent domain action in state court, and Clear Sky went to federal…

Continue Reading 4th Cir: Uniform Relocation Act Requirements Are Like The Pirate’s Code – “More What You’d Call ‘Guidelines,’ Than Actual Rules”