Search Results (227)
Documents on eminent domain
Show: results per page
|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...
|Texas Supreme Court Ruling May Slow the Installation of Certain Pipelines|
C. Brannon Robertson; King & Spalding LLP;
November 4, 2011, previously published on November 2011There are over 150,000 miles of intrastate pipelines in Texas. In addition to natural gas, the lines transport many other products related to the oil and gas industry—crude oil, condensate, carbon dioxide, and more. This pipeline system is of national importance, as Texas is not only a major...
|What Do You Mean I Don't Own My Franchised Business?|
Michael R. Kiesling, Antony D. Nash; Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP;
September 21, 2011, previously published on September 15, 2011California law provides that the owner of a business conducted on property taken by eminent domain is entitled to be compensated for loss of goodwill caused by the taking. But are franchisors business “owners” for purposes of recovery of goodwill compensation? As the California Court of...
|Supreme Court Rejects Railroad Commission Approval of Common Carrier Status in Condemnation Cases|
Amy L. Baird, Joseph (Tre) A. Fisher, Robert B. Neblett; Jackson Walker L.L.P.;
September 9, 2011, previously published on August 30, 2011On August 26, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the Ninth Court of Appeals to affirm the common carrier status and the eminent domain authority of a carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline company, Denbury Green Pipeline-Texas LLC ("Denbury Green"). The Appellate...
|New Requirements Under Texas Eminent Domain Laws|
Katharine D. David, Sandy D. Hellums, Michael A. Stafford; Haynes and Boone, LLP;
September 6, 2011, previously published on September 1, 2011The 2011 Texas Legislature adopted broad changes to eminent domain laws that take effect on September 1, 2011. Under the new law, public and private entities that hold condemnation power face important new requirements and deadlines. While governmental entities have numerous new procedural hurdles,...
|Public Acquisitions - Eminent Domain & Condemnation - An Overview|
Moses Brackett PC;
August 30, 2011Public Acquisitions - Eminent Domain & Condemnation - An Overview
The government and public utility companies are often involved in the acquisition of property from individuals. Most people are unfamiliar with the procedures involved and their rights affected when this happens. If you are...
|Latest on Condemnation of Fixtures in Virginia: Taco Bell v Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner|
Andrew R. McRoberts; Sands Anderson PC;
July 1, 2011, previously published on June 29, 2011On June 9, 2011, the Virginia Supreme Court held that whether equipment within a condemned business is personal property (therefore not valued as part of the take) or a fixture (therefore valued as part of the take) is a question for the condemnation jury, not the trial court. The holding was the...
|No Recovery For Impairment To Access Where Ingress And Egress Were Not Completely Obstructed By City’s Median Project|
William T. Chisum, Jeffrey L. Massey; Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard A Law Corporation;
June 23, 2011, previously published on June 21, 2011In Wardany v. City of San Jacinto, (2011 WL 2119370, C.D.Cal., May 27, 2011), a United States District Court considered whether a convenience store owner stated a claim against a city for taking his property without just compensation. The city had constructed a mile-long median in front of his...
|Diminished Just Compensation in Eminent Domain Cases|
John H. Buonocore; McKirdy and Riskin P.A.;
June 21, 2011, previously published by New Jersey Law Journal, Vol CXCII, No. 16, Index 164 on April, 2008Should the zoning benefits and incnetives accorded to a property under a local redevelopment plan be considered in determining the value of that property as part of just compensation for its acquisition via eminent domain?