Welcome to 'Just Compensation'
Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
#WorkforceWednesday: Mandatory Vaccination, Tipped Worker Rule, and SCOTUS Rules Against Organized Labor - Employment Law This Week®
A central issue going to both the valuation of damages and the extent of a taking in eminent domain cases is whether the government or utility is required to take an entire parcel, beyond just a portion that may be required...more
Procedures governing eminent domain actions differ in some respects from other areas of law. Notably, all issues, except the sole issue of compensation, are adjudicated by the court....more
In California, a fundamental principle of eminent domain law is that an owner of property acquired by eminent domain is entitled to just compensation for the property interests taken (Code Civ. Proc. §1263.010)....more
Facts: The property owner alleged a per se taking and inverse condemnation in the expansion of a road that increased surface and stormwater runoff flowing under the property and ultimately a sinkhole in the parking lot. The...more
Some might argue that challenging the necessity of an appropriation involving a public utility or common carrier is a futile act, given the presumption of the necessity under R.C. 163.09(B)(1)(c). In State ex rel. Bohlen v....more
The Ohio Department of Transportation has statutory authority to appropriate real property, but there are limitations to this authority. Among other limitations, ODOT must pay just compensation for the take....more
In Ohio, a condemning authority has the power to take private property for public use through eminent domain. This power is limited, however, by the requirements under the United States and Ohio Constitutions that require the...more
The facts at issue in Elpa Builders, Inc. v. State of New York are relatively straightforward. The property owner (the “Owner”) owned a 53,645-square-foot parcel of property (the “Property”) along New York State Route 347...more
Last year, the United States Supreme Court made headlines (at least in our eminent domain world) by issuing a ruling in Knick v. Township of Scott that property owners can bypass the state courts and directly file a Fifth...more
This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a critical question that will determine whether some landowners will receive compensation from regulations that restrict the uses of their land. The case, Murr v. Wisconsin, may...more