Eminent Domain Proceedings

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

• Dade Cnty. v. Midic Realty, Inc.
  549 So. 2d 1207· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-10-17 ·cited 4×
  In an eminent domain proceeding, Dade County appeals the trial court's award of $30,000 in appraiser's fees to the property owner, challenging the reasonableness of the award and claiming it deviated excessively from the County's own appraiser fees. The appellate court affirmed,
• United States v. 6.93 Acres OF Land
  852 F.2d 633· 1st Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a 1985 amendment to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which clarified the definition of 'prevailing party' in eminent domain cases, applies to fee applications pending on the amendment's enactment date.
• McDERMOTT v. The City OF Clearwater
  526 So. 2d 121· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-04 ·cited 4×
  An offer of judgment silent as to attorney's fees and made before dismissal of the only count permitting recovery of such fees does not entitle the accepting party to attorney's fees even if the dismissed count is later reasserted.
• Dade Cnty. v. Still
  370 So. 2d 64· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-04-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a pretrial order correctly excluded evidence of a road width ordinance's effect on market value in an eminent domain proceeding.
• Cement Prods. Corp. OF Sarasota, Inc. v. Division OF Administration
  363 So. 2d 866· Fla. 2d DCA· 1978-11-01 ·cited 4×
  Cement Products Corporation sought certiorari review of an eminent domain order of taking issued by the trial court. The appellate court dismissed the petition as untimely filed, holding that an unauthorized motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order does not toll the 30-day
• United States v. 416.81 Acres OF Land
  525 F.2d 450· 7th Cir.· 1975-04-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the landowners' arguments regarding failure to join all parties, delay in judicial orders, exclusion of appraiser testimony, discovery issues, judge's absence, inadequate jury awards, and late production of documents lacked merit.
• Erna Fleissner v. Division OF Administration
  298 So. 2d 547· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-08-09 ·cited 4×
  In a condemnation case involving the widening of U.S. 41 in front of Mrs. Fleissner's motel, the court reversed a jury verdict awarding $4,250 for the taking and $2,800 for severance damages because the taking award fell below the range of expert testimony and because the trial c
• Claiborne v. City OF Jacksonville
  260 So. 2d 257· Fla. 1st DCA· 1972-04-06 ·cited 4×
  In an eminent domain proceeding, the trial court excluded expert appraiser testimony regarding comparable sales of similar property located several miles away and in an adjoining county. The appellate court reversed, holding that distance and county location do not render compara
• Levit v. State
  248 So. 2d 542· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-03-25 ·cited 4×
• Litzel v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla.
  230 So. 2d 164· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-12-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the necessity of awarding a fee simple title to the condemnor, departing from the essential requirements of law.
• Trien v. Dade Cnty.
  222 So. 2d 456· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an interlocutory appeal of an order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, holding that such orders are not appealable as a matter of right under the former rules of appellate procedure unless they meet the stringent requirements
• Dean v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  184 So. 2d 517· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-03-22 ·cited 4×
  In this eminent domain appeal, the court addressed the proper calculation of interest owed to property owners whose land was taken by the State Road Department. The court held that interest must be calculated based on the pro rata share of the deposit applicable to each individua
• Choctawhatchee Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Major Realty Co., Inc.
  161 So. 2d 837· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-03-19 ·cited 4×
  A Florida appellate court held that trial courts have the power to change venue in eminent domain proceedings under the general change of venue statute, despite statutory language requiring such actions to be tried in the county where the condemned property is located. The court
• Anhoco Corp. v. Dade Cnty.
  127 So. 2d 464· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-03-02 ·cited 4×
  In this eminent domain appeal, Anhoco Corporation and Antwin Theatres challenged a jury verdict awarding them only one dollar in compensation plus $2,000 in attorney fees for the taking of fee simple title underlying an easement and loss of access to a planned limited access high
• Lewis v. United States
  200 F.2d 183· 9th Cir.· 1952-11-13 ·cited 4×
  The Housing Administrator, acting under the Lanham Act, was authorized to condemn the fee simple title to land for temporary wartime housing, and state law cannot restrict this federal power.
• Grand River Dam Auth. v. Thompson
  118 F.2d 242· 10th Cir.· 1941-03-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in submitting the question of whether land constituted a single unit to the jury, nor in failing to instruct on separate verdicts when no exceptions were properly saved.
• Miccosukee Tribe OF Indians OF Florida v. Dep't OF Env't Prot.
  78 So. 3d 31· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-12-30 ·cited 3×
  The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida sought to quash a trial court order denying summary judgment in an eminent domain proceeding, claiming sovereign immunity and protection under the Federal Nonintercourse Act for three parcels of land purchased on the open market. The app
• McMURRER v. Marion Cnty.
  936 So. 2d 19· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-06-16 ·cited 3×
  In an eminent domain case, landowners appealed the trial court's reinstatement of a quick-take order after the county failed to deposit the required good-faith estimate within the statutory 20-day deadline. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked authori
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Brenner
  208 So. 2d 279· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-10-18 ·cited 3×
• Joseph B. Doerr Tr. v. Cent. Fla. Expressway Auth.
  177 So. 3d 1209· Fla.· 2015-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a condemning authority engages in tactics causing excessive litigation in an eminent domain proceeding, the statutory fee formula in section 73.092(1) may be unconstitutional as applied if it results in attorney's fees below market rates,
• Pinnacle Floor Covering, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  16 So. 3d 919· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-08-07 ·cited 2×
  A defendant in an eminent domain proceeding is not entitled to recover expert fees for a business damage claim unless business damages are actually awarded by the jury.
• Alternative Networking, Inc. v. Solid Waste Auth. OF Palm Beach Cnty. & J.J. Taylor Cos., Inc.
  758 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-05-17 ·cited 2×
  In this consolidated eminent domain case, the court held that Alternative Networking, Inc. (ANI) did not have a compensable property interest in a tower leased and owned by J.J. Taylor Companies based on a 1990 service contract entitling ANI to 15% of rents from tenants it procur
• Miami-Dade Cnty. v. City Nat'l Bank OF Fla.
  761 So. 2d 368· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The trial court erred in awarding attorneys' and expert witness fees that included costs incurred for a speculative severance damages claim that was ultimately excluded.
• Dixie OIL Co. OF Fla., Inc. v. State
  657 So. 2d 1258· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-07-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Dixie Oil Company elected its remedy by accepting damages in the eminent domain proceeding and therefore could not pursue administrative remedies challenging the Department of Transportation's modification of its driveways.
• Bolduc v. Glendale Fed. Bank
  631 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-01-26 ·cited 2×
  In an eminent domain proceeding, the court reversed an apportionment award that granted lessees a portion of the property owner's settlement for the 'bonus value' of their leasehold interests. The court held that allowing the lessees to recover from both their own judgments and t
• Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc. v. Charlotte Cnty.
  620 So. 2d 1035· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-05-28 ·cited 2×
  In this eminent domain case, the court reverses a non-final order that excluded contributed property (so-called Contributions in Aid of Construction) from the valuation of G.D.U.'s utility system being condemned by Charlotte County. The court holds that Florida Supreme Court prec
• Batmasian v. Boca Raton Cmty. Redev. Agency
  580 So. 2d 199· Fla. 4th DCA· 1991-04-24 ·cited 2×
  Batmasian challenged an eminent domain taking by the Boca Raton Community Redevelopment Agency under Florida's blighted area redevelopment statute. The trial court granted the agency's petition for an order of taking and directed a $490,000 deposit. The appellate court affirmed,
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. Lutz Realty & Inv. Co.
  553 So. 2d 1320· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-12-13 ·cited 2×
  Hillsborough County appealed a trial court order that limited its eminent domain taking of adjacent property to Nye Park to only one-half acre for parking, rather than the requested five acres for expanded recreational facilities. The court affirmed, holding that when condemning
• United States v. 313.34 Acres OF Land
  897 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The court vacated the award of attorney and expert witness fees and remanded for specific findings on substantial justification and reasonableness, as the district court failed to articulate its reasoning.
• United States v. 7.92 Acres OF Land
  769 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Bessay's land did not qualify for the 'improved property' exemption and that the $2,000 compensation awarded was just.
• State v. Atl. Int'l Inv. Corp.
  438 So. 2d 868· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-09-12 ·cited 2×
  Atlantic International Investment Corporation sought damages for an alleged taking of its property rights in Cape Atlantic Estates (CAE) due to environmental permitting delays and regulatory actions. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's finding of a tak
• Weatherford v. United States
  606 F.2d 851· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the landowners were not entitled to compensation for the loss of the right to irrigate their land, as the taking of the easement was an exercise of the government's navigational servitude.
• United States ex rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. TWO Tracts OF Land Containing a Total OF 146.4 Acres
  532 F.2d 1083· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tennessee Valley Authority has the power to condemn land for the Tellico Dam project, even if some land is intended for future resale for industrial and recreational purposes, and that the awarded compensation was within the range of evidence.
• United States v. 573.88 Acres OF Land
  531 F.2d 847· 7th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that condemnation commission reports are not required to detail every step of their reasoning, as long as they provide a sufficient basis for judicial review and are within the range of the evidence presented.
• Fred and Dorothy Joiner v. City OF Dallas
  488 F.2d 519· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides an exception to the anti-injunction statute, granting federal courts jurisdiction to enjoin state proceedings when property rights are at issue. The court also found that federal courts should consider injunction claims under Younger
• Hilliard v. Commonwealth OF Pa. acting
  438 F.2d 92· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-04 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot enjoin state eminent domain proceedings, even if the landowners claim unconstitutional rulings have already been made in the state action.
• Elinor Hibbard v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  216 So. 2d 245· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-12-04 ·cited 2×
  This appeal concerns a trial court's dismissal with prejudice of a declaratory relief action after the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the court-ordered deadline and instead filed a voluntary dismissal notice. The court affirms, holding that the dismissal ord
• United States v. 1
  405 F.2d 913· 6th Cir.· 1968-11-25 ·cited 2×
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Levato
  192 So. 2d 35· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-09-14 ·cited 2×
  In this eminent domain appeal, the Florida appellate court reversed a judgment awarding $16,000 to property owners because the trial court admitted an expert appraiser's valuation report that was statutorily prohibited from use at trial under Florida Statutes section 74.09. The a
• Dean v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  156 So. 2d 649· Fla.· 1963-07-31 ·cited 2×
  Appeals from final judgments in eminent domain must be filed within 30 days under Section 73.14, while appeals from orders granting new trials are governed by Sections 59.04 and 59.08, allowing 60 days.
• Renedo v. Dade Cnty.
  139 So. 2d 698· Fla. 3d DCA· 1962-04-10 ·cited 2×
  In an eminent domain proceeding where Dade County took a five-foot strip of land to widen a street, the trial court reduced jury awards for severance damages to the remaining properties. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury's awards were supported by expert testimo
• Blinkman v. Dade Cnty.
  115 So. 2d 23· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-10-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a trial judge cannot amend a jury's compensation award in an eminent domain case to a lower amount unless the evidence is clear, sufficient, and unconflicted, which was not the case here.
• Seban v. Dade Cnty.
  102 So. 2d 706· Fla.· 1958-05-14 ·cited 2×
  Property owners in a condemnation proceeding sought attorney's fees for services rendered in a successful appeal of a county's appeal. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial judge's denial of the fees, holding that even if such fees are recoverable under state law, they mus
• Olin E. Watts Under the Last Will and Testament and Codicil thereto of A. F. Baines v. Duval Cnty.
  75 So. 2d 316· Fla.· 1954-06-11 ·cited 2×
• The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Bell
  43 Fla. 359· Fla.· 1901-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The Florida Central and Peninsular Railroad Company sought to condemn land for a railroad extension from Plant City to Tampa. The Supreme Court held that the company had statutory authority to extend its railroad and condemn property for that extension without amending its charte
• Caribbean Condo. v. The City OF Flagler Beach
  178 So. 3d 426· Fla. 5th DCA· 2015-09-18 ·cited 1×
  Caribbean Condominium appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees to the City of Flagler Beach under the Bert Harris Act, and the City cross-appealed the denial of its request for costs on unsuccessful inverse condemnation claims. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's
• Orange Cnty. v. Beryle S. Buchman
  81 So. 3d 520· Fla. 5th DCA· 2012-02-03 ·cited 1×
  Orange County appeals a final judgment in an eminent domain case awarding severance damages to property owners whose 77-acre tract was partially taken. The appellate court reverses on the issue of severance damages, finding the trial court improperly instructed the jury to disreg
• GIL Eriksen Props., LLC v. Pompano Beach Cmty. Redev. Agency
  997 So. 2d 522· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-01-05 ·cited 1×
  A property owner challenged an agreed order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, raising fraud and subject matter jurisdiction arguments nearly a year after withdrawing compensation from the court registry. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of these a
• Circle K Gen., Inc. v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  524 So. 2d 1143· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-05-13 ·cited 1×
  Circle K General appeals a trial court's denial of severance damages in an eminent domain case involving a partial taking of its property by Hillsborough County. The court affirmed, holding that the county was not equitably estopped from denying access to Anderson Road because Ci
• Camp Phosphate Co. v. Marion Cnty.
  201 So. 2d 793· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-06-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that draining surface waters into a private pit does not constitute a taking under eminent domain if it does not substantially deprive the owner of beneficial enjoyment of the pit.