Search Results (235)
Documents on eminent domain
Show: results per page
|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...
|No Inverse Condemnation Claim Where City Threatened But Did Not Proceed With Plans For Condemnation|
William T. Chisum, Jon E. Goetz, Jeffrey L. Massey; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
December 28, 2011, previously published on December 21, 2011A Court of Appeal recently held that a landowner failed to state a claim for inverse condemnation against a city that planned to take the landowner’s property but ultimately decided to not go forward with eminent domain proceedings. (Joffe v. City of Huntington Park (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----,...
|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...
|Purple Line Approved for Preliminary Engineering|
Harry W. Lerch; Lerch, Early & Brewer, Chartered;
December 6, 2011, previously published on December 1, 2011The Purple Line is a proposed $1.9 billion light rail project that would extend from Bethesda to New Carrollton by way of the Silver Spring Metro station, Langley Park and the University of Maryland campus. It is intended to ease east-west traffic in Montgomery and Prince Georges’ Counties.
|In An Eminent Domain Proceeding, Lenders’ Withdrawal Of Funds Without Objection From Property Owner Does Not Result In A Waiver Of Property Owner’s Rights|
William T. Chisum, Bruce A. Scheidt; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
November 25, 2011, previously published on November 21, 2011In Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC (--- P.3d ----, Cal., November 14, 2011), the California Supreme Court considered in an eminent domain proceeding whether a property owner’s right to contest the taking was waived. The public entity...
|EDPL § 207 Trumps CPLR Article 78 Statute Of Limitations|
Marie Butchello, Karla M. Corpus; Hiscock & Barclay, LLP;
November 24, 2011, previously published on November 2011In a September 30, 2011 decision, the Appellate Division Fourth Department held that a Petitioner in a proceeding under Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law timely challenged the Respondent agency’s environmental determination despite the fact that more than four months had passed...