Eminent Domain Proceedings

250 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Jacksonville Expressway Auth. v. Henry G. DU Pree Co.
  108 So. 2d 289· Fla.· 1958-10-01 ·cited 102×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a property owner displaced by eminent domain is entitled to recover reasonable moving costs for personal property as part of just compensation under the Florida Constitution. The court rejected the majority rule that moving costs are not compen
• Demeter Land Co. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Co.
  99 Fla. 954· Fla.· 1930-05-03 ·cited 98×
  Florida Supreme Court upheld an electric utility company's right to exercise eminent domain to acquire a right-of-way easement across private property for power transmission lines. The court held that furnishing electricity for light, heat, and power to the public constitutes a p
• Barco v. Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty.
  975 So. 2d 1116· Fla.· 2008-02-07 ·cited 92×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among district courts of appeal regarding the interpretation of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.525, which governs the timing of motions for attorneys' fees and costs. The Court held that the rule establishes only an outside deadlin
• Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division OF Administration
  315 So. 2d 492· Fla. 4th DCA· 1975-06-27 ·cited 87×
  The trial court erred in sua sponte amending its prior order denying a new trial by granting a new trial under Rule 1.540(b) to correct perceived judicial error.
• Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. K.E. Morris Alignment Serv., Inc.
  444 So. 2d 926· Fla.· 1983-11-10 ·cited 82×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that under section 73.071(3)(b), business damages in eminent domain proceedings are available only when a business has been in continuous operation at the specific location for more than five years, not merely when the business entity itself has exi
• The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Miller
  243 So. 2d 131· Fla.· 1970-12-16 ·cited 79×
  The Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the Canal Authority of Florida adequately demonstrated the necessity to take fee simple title (rather than just an easement) for the Cross Florida Barge Canal project. The Court held that a condemning authority must initially prove reas
• Baetjer v. United States
  143 F.2d 391· 1st Cir.· 1944-06-26 ·cited 77×
  The court held that integrated use, not physical contiguity, is the test for determining if separate land parcels constitute a single tract for severance damages in eminent domain cases. It also found that evidence of business losses due to over-capacity, if it reflects a depreci
• Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  170 So. 2d 846· Fla.· 1964-09-30 ·cited 74×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that constitutional Section 29 of Article XVI, which restricts eminent domain takings by private corporations and individuals, does not apply to state agencies or political subdivisions. The court upheld a statute allowing enhancement in value of re
• United States v. 329.73 Acres OF Land
  704 F.2d 800· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 68×
  The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) applies to eminent domain cases, allowing prevailing landowners to recover attorneys' fees and litigation expenses when the government's position is not substantially justified. Appellate courts can award such fees for unjustified appeals.
• State v. Nassau P'rs, Ltd.
  878 So. 2d 1286· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-08-10 ·cited 57×
  The court held that attorney fees incurred in litigating entitlement to costs are authorized in supplemental proceedings, but the lower court erred by failing to make specific findings justifying expert witness fee awards as required by statute.
• Bd. OF Comm'rs OF State Insts. v. Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co. cum testamento annexo
  108 So. 2d 74· Fla. 1st DCA· 1958-12-23 ·cited 54×
  In a condemnation proceeding, the State Board of Commissioners sought to acquire five parcels in Tallahassee's Capitol Center area for expansion purposes. The property owners challenged application of a municipal zoning ordinance that restricted the land to residential use, argui
• Behm v. Division OF Administration
  336 So. 2d 579· Fla.· 1976-07-08 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court clarified the latitude a jury has in awarding compensation for business damages in eminent domain proceedings when only one expert witness testifies on a particular damage element. The court held that juries need not accept an expert's valuation as a min
• Houston Tex. GAS & OIL Corp. v. Hoeffner
  132 So. 2d 38· Fla. 2d DCA· 1961-06-30 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow the condemnor to amend its petition late in the proceedings or in refusing to admit evidence regarding the condemnor's non-binding policy on land use.
• Zuberbuhler v. Division OF Administration
  344 So. 2d 1304· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-04-20 ·cited 48×
  A condemnation case where the court holds that discovery of expert witness opinions expected to be called at trial is permissible under Rule 1.280(b)(3)(A), even when initiated by the condemnor without prior discovery by the condemnee. The court distinguishes and limits the holdi
• Wilson v. United States
  350 F.2d 901· 10th Cir.· 1965-09-01 ·cited 48×
  The court held that a commission's findings in a condemnation case are binding on the trial court unless clearly erroneous, and that taking more land than strictly necessary for a public use is permissible if done within authorized discretion and without bad faith.
• Westchester Cnty. Park Comm'n v. United States
  143 F.2d 688· 2d Cir.· 1944-06-05 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court's valuation was supported by substantial evidence and that any procedural errors in admitting testimony were harmless.
• Boynton v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla.
  311 So. 2d 412· Fla. 1st DCA· 1975-04-24 ·cited 45×
  In this eminent domain case involving the Canal Authority's acquisition of land for the Rodman Pool project, the court reversed a judgment awarding compensation for the taking of 540 acres because expert appraisal testimony lacked a rational, explainable basis and improperly char
• Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth.
  131 So. 2d 740· Fla.· 1961-06-28 ·cited 43×
  A Florida Supreme Court case addressing whether a trial judge properly granted a motion for new trial in a condemnation action when the jury's verdict shocked the judge's conscience, despite the verdict falling within the evidentiary range. The Court reaffirms that trial judges h
• Chatlos v. City OF Hallandale
  220 So. 2d 353· Fla.· 1968-12-12 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict among District Courts of Appeal regarding the proper method to appeal a judgment awarding attorneys' fees and costs in an abandoned eminent domain proceeding. The Court held that a cost judgment entered as part of a final judgment is
• United States v. Arlo C. Crance
  341 F.2d 161· 8th Cir.· 1965-02-11 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the landowner was not entitled to an enhanced valuation for property taken by eminent domain, as it was probably within the scope of the project from its inception for recreational purposes, and the government was not estopped from asserting this by preliminar
• Carlor Co., Inc. v. City of Miami
  62 So. 2d 897· Fla.· 1953-01-30 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of a collateral attack on a final judgment in an eminent domain proceeding where the City of Miami had condemned property on Virginia Key in 1944 for port and airport purposes. The property owner, Carlor Company, sought to set aside th
• Casa Loma Springs Dev. Co. v. Brevard Cnty.
  93 Fla. 601· Fla.· 1927-03-23 ·cited 40×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a lower court's decision in a condemnation case. The court found that charging the jury to determine compensation based on market value at the time of trial was harmful error when the property had been unlawfully appropriated before trial.
• City OF Hollywood v. Jarkesy
  343 So. 2d 886· Fla. 4th DCA· 1977-02-18 ·cited 39×
  The City of Hollywood appealed a trial court's order granting a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding, challenging the court's determination that the jury's verdict on severance damages was inadequate. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial court acte
• United States v. 60.14 Acres OF Land
  362 F.2d 660· 3d Cir.· 1966-06-24 ·cited 38×
  The court held that an expert witness's knowledge of property value, even if acquired retrospectively through research of past sales, goes to the weight of the evidence, not the witness's competency, under federal rules.
• Orange State OIL Co. v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth. & W. C. Berrier
  143 So. 2d 892· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-07-12 ·cited 36×
  Orange State Oil Company appealed from orders in an eminent domain proceeding awarding all condemnation compensation to the fee owner Berrier and denying cost-shifting. The court held that Orange State committed an anticipatory breach of its lease by abandoning the property befor
• Orange State OIL Co. v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth.
  110 So. 2d 687· Fla. 1st DCA· 1959-02-24 ·cited 35×
  Orange State Oil Company appealed from a judgment awarding it only $3,000 compensation for its leasehold interest in condemned property used for a gasoline service station. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erred by excluding expert testimony using the summation me
• State Rd. Dept. v. Forehand
  56 So. 2d 901· Fla.· 1952-02-12 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Chapter 74, Florida Statutes, which provides a summary method for the State Road Department to acquire property for public use pending condemnation proceedings. The court found that the statute adequately protects property
• The City of Jacksonville v. Shaffer
  107 Fla. 367· Fla.· 1932-12-06 ·cited 35×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a municipality condemns a non-exclusive easement for waterworks in streets that were dedicated to the public subject to a reserved exclusive right to operate utilities, the property owner is entitled to compensation not only for the fair m
• The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla. v. Litzel
  243 So. 2d 135· Fla.· 1970-12-16 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed the District Court of Appeal and upheld the Canal Authority's taking of fee simple title to the Litzels' land for the Cross Florida Barge Canal project. The Court held that a condemning authority need only show reasonable necessity for a taking,
• Mills v. United States
  363 F.2d 78· 8th Cir.· 1966-07-13 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the commission's findings regarding the minimal value of coal deposits were not clearly erroneous, despite the owners' expert testimony suggesting higher value.
• Carter v. State Rd. Dep't
  189 So. 2d 793· Fla.· 1966-06-22 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a lessee's interest in condemned property constitutes a compensable proprietary interest, and that Florida Statute § 73.12, which requires a single jury verdict followed by court apportionment among interested parties, does not violate the stat
• United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in City of Philadelphia
  144 F.2d 626· 3d Cir.· 1944-08-16 ·cited 34×
  The trial court correctly rejected a written instrument as evidence of market value because it was an option agreement, not a firm sale for a definite price.
• Ball v. City OF Tallahassee
  281 So. 2d 333· Fla.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a condemnation order for a perpetual easement, holding that the condemning authority must initially present evidence of reasonable necessity for taking specific property, and that abuse of discretion alone can override the authority's eminent do
• United States v. Certain Prop. Located IN the Borough OF Manhattan
  344 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that federal condemnation proceedings should apply state property law to determine what constitutes a 'taking,' and that tenants are entitled to compensation for trade fixtures that are part of the real property under state law, even if the government argues for a
• Guarria v. Duke, Jr.
  117 So. 2d 5· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-01-11 ·cited 30×
  Property owners appealed a condemnation judgment by the State Road Department of Florida, challenging whether damages for destruction of an established business are compensable when the entire property is taken, and whether attorneys' fees awarded were grossly inadequate. The cou
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Lewis
  190 So. 2d 598· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-09-06 ·cited 29×
  The State Road Department appealed a judgment in an inverse condemnation suit brought by the Lewises for damages caused by the state's construction of a viaduct on their garage property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the Department's challenges to the proce
• United States v. 3
  416 F.2d 65· 8th Cir.· 1969-10-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that landowner opinion testimony on land value, even if not strictly based on market price or comparable sales, is admissible and can support jury awards if it has some foundation in the owner's familiarity with the property.
• Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armadillo P'rs, Inc.
  849 So. 2d 279· Fla.· 2003-04-24 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision that excluded expert appraisal testimony regarding severance damages in an eminent domain case involving a partial taking of a shopping center's property. The Court held that an expert appraiser's methodology should
• Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo Cnty. Indus. Dev. Corp.
  637 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a complaint alleging deprivation of property rights under color of state law, through misuse of expropriation proceedings, sufficiently states a federal claim to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
• O'Sullivan v. City OF Deerfield Beach
  232 So. 2d 33· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-02-25 ·cited 26×
  A Florida appellate court held that a city could not unilaterally dismiss an eminent domain action after depositing compensation funds into the court registry and taking title to the property. The court determined that once property is seized and title vests in the condemnor, dis
• Couse v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla.
  209 So. 2d 865· Fla.· 1968-05-01 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to review by certiorari an interlocutory order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, despite the order not being final, because such review is necessary to the Court's prescribed constitutional jurisdiction to decide ap
• Maiatico v. United States
  302 F.2d 880· D.C. Cir.· 1962-03-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government's acquisition of the Matomic Building was not authorized by statute because it was outside the defined 'taking area' and lacked required congressional committee approval.
• Gus Boulis v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  733 So. 2d 959· Fla.· 1999-04-01 ·cited 24×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that property owners in eminent domain proceedings are entitled to prejudgment interest on reasonable costs (such as expert witness and appraisal fees) incurred in defending against the taking, provided those costs were actually paid before judgment
• Pinellas Cnty. v. Carlson
  242 So. 2d 714· Fla.· 1970-12-09 ·cited 24×
  In this eminent domain case, the Florida Supreme Court held that the work product doctrine protects a condemnee's (property owner's) expert appraisals from discovery by the condemning state authority, except when the condemnee initiates discovery of the state's work product. The
• United States v. 1
  473 F.2d 996· 8th Cir.· 1973-02-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that evidence of subsequent comparable sales is admissible to determine market value in eminent domain cases, but the trial court's error in excluding such evidence was harmless in this instance.
• Morgan v. United States
  356 F.2d 17· 8th Cir.· 1966-02-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that even if a commission's report predates the Merz decision, it can be affirmed if it sufficiently demonstrates fairness, safeguards against bias, and reveals the evaluation process, especially when the landowners fail to make specific objections.
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Falcon, Inc.
  157 So. 2d 563· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-11-13 ·cited 22×
  State Road Department and Pinellas County appealed an order granting a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding, arguing that the trial court erred in invalidating expert appraisal testimony solely because the witnesses failed to consider one comparable transaction. The appellat
• Knappen v. Division OF Administration
  352 So. 2d 885· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-11-16 ·cited 21×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, holding that the Department of Transportation failed to prove the necessity of taking two motel parcels for a 14-foot right-of-way expansion when an alternative 66-foot design (alrea
• Division OF Administration v. ELY
  351 So. 2d 66· Fla. 3d DCA· 1977-10-11 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals a jury verdict awarding Southeastern Propane Gas Co. $4,157.63 in an eminent domain proceeding for the taking of land in a mobile home park. The court reverses, holding that a service and easement agreement to supply propane gas cr
• Dade Cnty. v. Still
  377 So. 2d 689· Fla.· 1979-11-21 ·cited 20×
  Dade County challenged a lower court ruling that prevented it from considering the effect of its own right-of-way ordinances when determining compensation for property taken in eminent domain. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a condemning authority cannot reduce c