On-Demand Webinar | Eminent Domain in 2020: A Year in Review
Planning and constructing public infrastructure projects takes significant time – sometimes many years. Property owners and businesses who may be impacted are left in a state of limbo, not knowing for sure whether the project...more
Can a public entity be held liable for inverse condemnation when it fails to prevent another party from causing damage to private property? This one is pretty simple: the answer is no....more
Inverse condemnation is a legal theory that is not common in the subrogation industry. However, when dealing with a loss where property damage is the result of action by a public entity, it is a claim that may be available....more
In litigation underlying Satcher v. Columbia County, 2024 WL 3802370 (Ga. Aug. 13, 2024), property owners sued the County related to damage caused by their privately-owned 48-inch pipe that had been used as part of the...more
The Arkansas Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) addressed in a February 15th Opinion issues arising out of an inverse condemnation claim. See City of Sherwood v. Clint Bearden, 2023 Ark. App. 67. The inverse...more
Multiple applications for a development project are not required where the first permit denial makes clear that no development of the property would be allowed under any circumstance. Felkay v. City of Santa Barbara, No....more
When a property owner commits to developing property in a certain manner, including providing a certain number of parking spaces, and the local government agency enforces the owner’s failure to comply, does the enforcement...more
The court of appeal held that plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation and damages claims based on dredging in the bay adjacent to their properties was barred under the doctrine of res judicata based on a 1931 judgment conclusively...more
Since the California Supreme Court’s 2019 Oroville decision, which narrowed inverse condemnation liability for public agencies, several court decisions have followed suit. ...more
In City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with...more
In an August 2019 decision, the Fourth Department of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled that property owners cannot assert a lawsuit alleging inverse condemnation and other damages...more
We recently reported on the California Supreme Court’s decision in Oroville which provided a relaxed standard for public agencies facing inverse condemnation claims. Since that decision, a new unpublished Court of Appeal...more
Inverse condemnation litigation and liability has become a particularly hot topic in California over the last several years. Not many attorneys specialize in this area, and there are a number of traps for the unwary lawyers,...more
On June 5, 2019, the California Supreme Court (“Court”) heard oral argument in the case City of Oroville v. Superior Court of Butte County, Case No. S243247 (“Oroville Case”). This case is notable because it is the first time...more
Like the vast majority of general civil litigation, eminent domain matters usually settle before going to trial. The resolution is typically documented in either a stipulated judgment or a settlement agreement. ...more
Many public agencies and utilities have easements for water or gas pipelines or electric transmission lines. Those easements typically contain express rights to construct, operate, and maintain the facilities, including...more
In a recent unpublished Court of Appeal decision, Downs v. City of Redding (October 30, 2018), the Court took up two distinct issues: (a) whether a contractor’s use of property for construction staging constitutes a taking...more
As any experienced California eminent domain lawyer knows, there is a unique statutory mechanism that allows parties to bring a legal issues motion to secure a court’s ruling on a litany of issues that impact compensation....more
Two of the more complicated issues eminent domain attorneys face are analyzing whether government conduct rises to the level of a taking, and whether the government engaged in precondemnation conduct that gives rise to...more
When a business is taken as a result of a public improvement, the business is entitled to seek compensation for, among other things, loss of business goodwill. Typically, this loss is calculated by measuring the business’...more
The South Carolina Supreme Court, in Carolina Conv. Stores v. City of Spartanburg, Op. No. 27663 (S.C.Sup.Ct. filed August 31, 2016) (Shearouse Adv.Sh. No. 35 at 12), tackled the issue of whether a city’s SWAT response to a...more
The South Carolina Court of Appeals recently considered the appeal of Claude Graham and Vickie Graham against the Town of Latta, South Carolina, in the case of Graham v. Town of Latta, 789 S.E.2d 71 (S.C.Ct.App. 2016). The...more
One of the most valuable assets many homeowners enjoy is their property’s view. If the government undertakes an activity that eliminates or obstructs that view, is an owner entitled to relief? In Boxer v. City of Beverly...more
In the last month, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear appeals on two eminent domain-related cases. The first case, California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, is one we discussed last year....more
California’s infrastructure is aging. There have been numerous reports of water line breaks and gas line leaks, and public agencies have been moving quickly to upgrade their utilities to minimize these risks and satisfy...more