Search Results (229)
Documents on eminent domain
Show: results per page
|No Change Of Ownership Assessment Exemption For Property Sold To Private Party Under Threat Of Condemnation|
Jon E. Goetz, Jeffrey L. Massey, Brett L. Price; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
April 26, 2012, previously published on April 24, 2012A California court of appeal recently rejected a landowner’s claim that newly purchased replacement property should be exempt from reassessment and the establishment of a new base year value because the landowner sold his original property under threat of condemnation to a private party...
|Eminent Domain and the Commercial Lease|
James D. Masterman; Greenberg Traurig, LLP;
March 28, 2012, previously published on March 21, 2012Often, commercial landlords and tenants only pay close attention to the eminent domain or condemnation clause in a lease when the condemning authority first gives notice that either all or a part of the leased premises is about to be taken. By that time, landlords and tenants find themselves in an...
|Litigation Expenses Award Not Available In Eminent Domain Action Ended By Stipulated Judgment Before The Start Of Trial|
William T. Chisum; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
March 15, 2012, previously published on March 13, 2012A California Court of Appeal recently held that property owners in an eminent domain action were not entitled to an award of litigation expenses after they entered into a stipulated judgment with the State Department of Transportation several days before their scheduled trial date. (The People ex...
|Creative Valuation Approaches for Difficult Properties|
Anthony F. Della Pelle, Cory K. Kestner, Harry J. Riskin; McKirdy and Riskin P.A.;
March 14, 2012, previously published by The Practical Real Estate Lawyer, American Law Institute - American Bar Association on March 2012Value can be hidden below the surface. Oil must be drilled
for many miles below the earth’s surface, while diamonds must be mined. Although a property may not instantly reveal the best way to appraise or value it for just compensation purposes, a little digging into how market participants...
|Supreme Court Revises Test to Establish Common Carrier Status in Condemnation Cases|
Amy L. Baird, Tré Fischer, Robert B. Neblett; Jackson Walker L.L.P.;
March 8, 2012, previously published on March 6, 2012On March 2, 2012, the Texas Supreme Court revised its opinion in the controversial case, Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas, LLC. In its original decision, the Supreme Court held that merely filing the paperwork and offering to make the pipeline available for public use...
|Texas Supreme Court Heard Condemnation Case Today - $48,000 or $21 million?|
Susan Dillon Ayers; Jackson Walker L.L.P.;
February 29, 2012, previously published on February 27, 2012Today the Texas Supreme Court heard an oral argument to decide whether a pipeline company will pay $48,000 or $21 million to condemn 24 acres for a gas processing facility.
|Property Owner's Claim for Inverse Condemnation Did Not Accrue Until City's Occupation of the Property Became Wrongful, Which Was Not Until the Eminent Domain Proceeding Was Dismissed|
William T. Chisum, Jeffrey L. Massey; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
February 15, 2012, previously published on February 10, 2011In Cobb v. City of Stockton, (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 3 Dist., January 26, 2011), a court of appeal considered whether a property owner’s claim for inverse condemnation was barred by the statute of limitations. The court of appeal held the property owner’s claim was not barred by...
|Statements of Intent to Condemn Do Not Give Rise to Inverse Condemnation Claim|
Michael Hansen; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
January 9, 2012, previously published on January 6, 2012The Second Appellate District recently held that public statements and other actions indicating an intent to condemn must clearly meet the criteria set out in the landmark California Supreme Court decision Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 (Klopping) in order for inverse condemnation...
|Court of Appeal Rules that Denial of a Landowner's Application to Develop Property Can Be a Compensable Regulatory Taking|
S. Keith Garner, Michael Hansen; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
January 9, 2012, previously published on January 6, 2012The Fourth Appellate District recently held that a local agency's denial of an application to develop a 2.85 acre parcel in the middle of a developed residential area can constitute a compensable regulatory taking under the Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York (1978) 438 U.S. 104...
|Widow of Company’s Founder is Not Entitled to Stock Owned By Her Husband Prior to Their Marriage But the Increase in the Value of the Stock During the Time of Their Marriage is Community Property|
Linda M. Monje; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
December 28, 2011, previously published on December 27, 2011In Patrick v. Alacer (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, Cal.App. 4 Dist., November 16, 2011), a California Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the widow of the founder of a company and trustees of the trust established by her husband to run the company, over whether she could make a claim to her...