Eminent Domain | Condemnation

Subscribe to Eminent Domain | Condemnation via RSS

20160128_091958

20160128_092004

Here’s what’s going on today, the first day of the 33d annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation conference in Austin, Texas. We’re at standing room only, with a record number of attendees and our usual nationally renown faculty.

We started off the day with our usual “Eminent Domain Update” session with Amy Brigham Boulris, and as mentioned, the links to the opinions which we discussed are going to be posted in a separate post today. 

We are being followed by a panel on pipeline takings, one of the hot issues nationwide, with Joe Waldo, Matthew Ray, MAI, Thomas Peebles, and Dave Domina.

That session was followed by Professor Ilya Somin, talking about his book, “The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain.”  

Above are our annual “proof of life” photos taken from the lectern, to show…

Continue Reading ALI-CLE 2016 Eminent Domain Conference, First Day: Standing Room Only, National Expertise

20160126_164326

Austin, Texas, is where we’re at for the next few days, for the 2016 edition of the American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation conference, now in its 33d year. First time we’re in Austin, however, and our registration numbers are looking very good, and we haven’t had this big a turnout in years.

We haven’t been back to Austin in a few years ourselves, so we did what law nerds sometimes do when we go to new towns: visit the local courtroom to check out the scene. So we dropped by the Supreme Court of Texas to take a look. Turns out it was an off-day for the court and it was not in session and the courtroom was locked. But Security suggested that if we asked the Clerk nicely, she might retrieve the key and let us take a look around. And you know what? She did.

Continue Reading ALI-CLE 2016 Eminent Domain Conference: Austin Scouting Report

The California Supreme Court has agreed to review a recent Court of Appeal decision (see “Court Of Appeal Files Pro-Condemnor Amicus Brief In Cal Supreme Court “Entry Statute” Case“), but only after the court rules on Property Reserve v. Superior Court (S217738)  

On January 13, 2016, the court granted and held the petition in Young’s Market:

The petition for review is granted. Further action in this matter is deferred pending consideration and disposition of related issues in Property Reserve v. Superior Court (S217738) (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.524 (c)), or pending further order of the court. Submission of additional briefing, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.528, is deferred pending further order of the court. The stay previously issued by the Court of Appeal remains in effect until further order of this court. Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Werdegar, Chin, Corrigan, Liu, Cuéllar and Kruger…

Continue Reading Cal Supreme Court “Grants And Holds” Second Entry Statute Case

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

We know we’ve been doing the hard sell lately, with multiple posts on the details of the upcoming 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, which runs from January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas. And this will be our last pre-conference post, we promise.

But me and my co-planning chairs, Joe Waldo, Jack Sperber, and Andrew Brigham, think we’re put together a very good program that covers a lot of ground, and we really want you to come. This is also the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re in a brand new (as in just opened) hotel, so we’re looking forward to this perhaps more than usual.

The full agenda is posted here, but here are highlights:

…
Continue Reading Final Post: More Reasons To Attend The ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

We’re now only a bit more than two weeks away from the 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation – Condemnation 101 Conference, which runs from January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas. 

As we’ve noted here earlier, we think that this is going to be a fantastic conference that will cover a lot of ground, and the hot topics of the day. Here’s the full agenda for the program. If you are not familiar with the conference or have not attended recently, we’ve undergone some formatting changes lately, but are still bringing the best faculty and topics to bear. Here’s a summary of last year’s San Francisco conference, to give you an idea of how we’ve updated the programs, while keeping the best elements and traditions unchanged.  

This is the first time the conference has been held in Austin, and thus far, the registration figures are doing exceedingly…

Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference, Austin, TX – Nearly Here, But There’s Still Time To Register

One for the appellate practitioners in the audience.

In City of Little Rock v. Hermitage Dev. Corp., No. CV-15-842 (Ark. Dec. 3, 2015), the Arkansas Supreme Court granted the property owners’ motion to dismiss an appeal filed by the city from a jury verdict awarding just compensation. The court agreed that the City missed its deadlines to get the record on appeal lodged even though the trial court granted an extension of time to allow the court reporter preparing trial transcripts to get those done (and get paid).

The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court should not have granted the request for an extension, because the rules require strict compliance, the rules are jurisdictional, and the city had not made the proper financial arrangements with the court reporter to get her paid. The rules require that this means the reporter is actually paid, “not merely making promises…

Continue Reading Arkansas: City Missed Appeal Of Just Comp Verdict By Not Paying The Court Reporter In Time

Another short one, this time from the Arkansas Supreme Court.

In City of Siloam Springs v. La-De LLC, No. CV-15-194 (Ark. Nov. 19, 2015), the court concluded that an Arkansas statute which requires the state to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees if the just compensation exceeds the deposit by more than 10%, does not apply when a city is the condemnor against whom the condemnation judgment is entered. 

The statute was clear enough, because it required the court to award fees “against the State of Arkansas and in favor of the party entitled thereto,” and here, the condemnation judgment involved the city, not the state. There is no statutory authority for an award of fees in eminent domain cases against cities. Seems simple enough, no? 

But the twist was that the condemnation in this case was actually instituted by the State Department of Transportation, after which it was granted immediate…

Continue Reading Arkansas: Eminent Domain Fee Shifting Statute Only Applies To State Condemnations, Not City, Even Though State DOT Initiated The Taking

Another one in our year-end opinion rush.

In Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University v. Villavaso, No. 2014-CA-1277 (Dec. 23, 2015), the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s view of just compensation after a bench trial, in a case about LSU’s taking of property being used for a parking lot in New Orleans. The court concluded that the verdict was a choice between the property owner’s appraiser and LSU’s, which was “a pure credibility call.” Slip op. at 9. And you know what that means when an appellate court says such things: affirmed.

The court also upheld the verdict regarding business losses, and the lower court’s ruling that the owner was entitled to compensation both for the taking of the land, as well as the value of the parking business. Same result on LSU’s claim that the trial judge erroneously prohibited one of LSU’s…

Continue Reading La App: Trial Court’s Ruling On Value “A Pure Credibility Call”

S062766

Here’s one in which we’ve been waiting for the ball to drop, since we filed an amicus brief in the case. Unfortunately, the result in State of Oregon v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Ltd., No. SC062766 (Dec. 31, 2015) wasn’t as hoped for, but looking for silver linings, was a lot less bad than it could have been.

Bottom line is that the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a property owner does not have a right of direct access to a highway, only a right of reasonable access. Thus, when a project to improve Highway 99 cut off Alderwoods’ driveways on Highway 99, it was not a taking of access because Alderwoods still had access to Highway 99 via a driveway on Warner Avenue:

The above cases demonstrate three governing principles regarding the common-law right of access of a property owner to an abutting public road. First, it is well…

Continue Reading Oregon: Cutting Off Direct Highway Access Is OK, Provided Property Isn’t Totally Landlocked

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

Here’s our second day of highlights from the upcoming American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, which will be held in Austin, Texas, from January 28-30, 2016.  

This is the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re hoping for a good turnout. Here’s the full agenda for the program. 

  • We especially focused on the ethics component this year, and are looking forward to the session on “Ethics: Tips and Traps for the Eminent Domain Practitioner” at the first plenary session on the second day, taught by Jamila A. Johnson (Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, Seattle), Robert B. Neblett, (Jackson Walker L.L.P., Austin). and Joseph V. Sherman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia). 
  • Pipeline takings are a huge issue, and we’ve got the lawyers on the very tip of the spear on these cases. “Pipelines and Energy

…
Continue Reading More On The Upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference (Austin, Jan 28-30, 2016)