Eminent Domain Proceedings

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

• Hoyle Whitaker and Lillie Inez Whitaker v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth.
  129 So. 2d 188· Fla. 1st DCA· 1961-04-25 ·cited 1×
  The court addresses whether a 30-day appeal deadline in the eminent domain statute remains valid after the 1956 Florida constitutional amendment vested appellate jurisdiction in district courts of appeal rather than the supreme court. The court holds that while the constitutional
• Galleon BAY Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Monroe Cnty.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-12-02
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to declare a final judgment void. The court held that a statute requiring the condemning authority to deposit funds within 20 days of judgment does not apply to inverse condemnation cases initiated by a landowner.
• Neighborhood Planning Co., LLC v. State of Fla. Dep't of Transp.
  Fla. 3d DCA· 2020-07-29
  The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's order denying a motion for a new trial in an eminent domain case. The court found no abuse of discretion in limiting expert testimony but reversed regarding severance damages for a cell tower setback.
• Gen. Commercial Props., Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  178 So. 3d 439· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-10-14
  General Commercial Properties appeals the trial court's calculation of attorney's fees in an eminent domain proceeding brought by the Florida Department of Transportation. The court affirms the use of DOT's 2012 regular acquisition offer (rather than its 2005 Early Acquisition Pr
• Homestead Land Grp., LLC v. City OF Homestead
  165 So. 3d 62· Fla. 3d DCA· 2015-06-03
  HLG appeals a trial court's approval of an eminent domain taking by the City of Homestead, claiming it had an interest in the taken property through a reversionary clause. The court affirmed, holding that HLG had no legally cognizable interest in the property at the time of the t
• City OF Jacksonville v. Westland Park Assocs., II
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2007-02-12
  Severance damages are not available for reduced access attributable to median construction within the government's existing right-of-way, even if part of a larger project that includes a taking.
• United States v. Persaud
  420 F. Supp. 2d 1263· M.D. Fla.· 2006-01-18
  The court held that while the government has the power to force a sale of property to satisfy tax debts, equitable considerations and third-party interests, as outlined in United States v. Rodgers, may warrant postponing or modifying such sales, particularly concerning a spouse's
• Grover Burgan & Rhona Burgan & Ramp Realty of Fla., Inc. v. City OF Jacksonville
  920 So. 2d 70· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-01-10
  In an eminent domain proceeding where the City of Jacksonville sought to acquire the Burgans' property to widen a road, the jury awarded damages substantially below the lowest expert valuation presented at trial. The appellate court reversed, holding that the jury violated the tr
• State v. Lockhart
  909 So. 2d 590· Fla. 5th DCA· 2005-09-02
  Florida's Department of Transportation appealed a trial court's award of attorney's fees to property owners in an eminent domain proceeding for costs incurred in litigating the amount of expert witness fees owed by the State. The court affirmed, holding that post-judgment cost pr
• The Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty. v. 427 Hope, Inc.
  886 So. 2d 241· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-07-21
  The School Board of Palm Beach County appealed an order awarding $87,000 in attorneys' fees to 427 Hope, Inc. in an eminent domain proceeding. The court reversed the portion of the fees award attributable to benefits achieved for the tenants, holding that statutory language restr
• BAY III, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  873 So. 2d 625· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-06-04
  Appellants' challenge to denial of attorney's fees for expert costs in eminent domain proceeding is reversed and remanded based on controlling precedent in Enterprising Professional Investment Corp. v. Department of Transportation.
• Dep't OF Transp. v. Enterprising Prof'l Inv. Co.
  809 So. 2d 19· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-01-25
  The court held that section 73.032(5), Florida Statutes, is a substantive prohibition on awarding costs, not a sanction requiring a procedural motion.
• Dep't of Transp. v. O'Donnell
  775 So. 2d 991· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-12-01
  The court held that an attorney representing himself and other owners in an eminent domain proceeding is entitled to a reasonable attorney's fee.
• Amerada Hess Corp. v. State
  788 So. 2d 276· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-11-01
  The court affirmed the award of statutory attorney's fees and the denial of the motion to strike the settlement offer, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
• State v. Daystar, Inc.
  674 So. 2d 754· Fla. 4th DCA· 1996-03-20
  The court held that an offer of judgment made in December 1992 was valid because procedural rules governing such offers were in effect, despite a gap in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
• State v. Coleman
  673 So. 2d 874· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-01-19
  The court does not resolve the admissibility question but reverses for a new trial and certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether section 73.071(3)(b) permits business damages calculation methods excluding fixed expenses in partial takings.
• Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. Harrell
  645 So. 2d 1026· Fla. 2d DCA· 1994-10-26
  The Expressway Authority appealed a jury award of damages for a temporary taking of two residential parcels based on the filing of a map of reservation. The appellate court reversed, holding that the property owners failed to prove they were denied substantially all economically
• United States v. Werner
  916 F.2d 175· 4th Cir.· 1990-10-16
  The court held that land commissioners appointed under Rule 71A(h) are subject to the same disqualification standards as judges under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a), requiring disqualification when impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
• Auerbach v. Dep't OF Transp. OF the State OF Fla.
  545 So. 2d 514· Fla. 3d DCA· 1989-07-05
  Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of inverse condemnation claim, holding that administrative planning preparatory to potential eminent domain proceedings does not constitute a compensable taking.
• Jack Bakery Servs., Inc. v. W. Treats Meat Mkt., Inc.
  530 So. 2d 447· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-08-31
  Jack Bakery Services appeals from an order disbursing a quick-taking deposit in an eminent domain proceeding to Western Treats Meat Market. The court affirmed, holding that Jack Bakery waived its objections to early disbursement by failing to appear at the motion hearing, though
• Hellenic Ctr., Inc. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  815 F.2d 982· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-07
  A property owner cannot recover legal and appraisal fees under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act when the government agency never instituted formal condemnation proceedings, even if negotiations were abandoned.
• Post v. Dade Cnty.
  467 So. 2d 758· Fla. 3d DCA· 1985-04-09
  Property owners challenged Dade County's quick-taking of their parcels for a slum clearance and community redevelopment project, arguing they should be allowed to develop the property themselves rather than have it condemned. The Florida appellate court affirmed the county's auth
• United States v. 65.0 Acres OF Land
  728 F.2d 417· 10th Cir.· 1984-02-14
  The court held that the trial court did not err in valuing the condemned land based on its pre-reservoir proximity value and in denying the owner's motion to reopen the trial to present evidence on market interest rates.
• City OF Clearwater v. Earle
  418 So. 2d 344· Fla. 2d DCA· 1982-08-04
  The City of Clearwater appeals a summary judgment ordering it to initiate eminent domain proceedings after the Earles discovered a drainage pipe running across their property outside the recorded easement. The court holds that no inverse condemnation occurred because there was ne
• United States v. 452.876 Acres OF Land
  667 F.2d 442· 4th Cir.· 1981-12-23
  The court held that the commission's reports and the district court's confirmation orders were insufficient because they lacked the necessary detail to determine if the findings were clearly erroneous.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. City OF Miami
  372 So. 2d 152· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-06-12
  Florida East Coast Railway Company appeals a trial court order authorizing the City of Miami to condemn railroad property for a public park. The court upholds Miami's statutory authority to condemn the property and rejects the railroad's affirmative defense that the property is n
• Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Trost Int'l, Ltd.
  47 Fla. Supp. 175· Lee Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1978-06-21
  A vendor under a contract for deed, holding only legal title as security for an indebtedness, is considered a lienholder and not an "owner" entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs in an eminent domain proceeding under Florida Statute § 73.091.
• Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Perry
  42 Fla. Supp. 122· Lake Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1975-05-19
  In a consolidated condemnation case involving fourteen parcels, the Lake County Circuit Court awarded attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and costs to the landowners' counsel following a jury verdict determining compensation. The court exercised its discretion to allow reasonab
• Cusmano v. Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth.
  301 So. 2d 117· Fla. 2d DCA· 1974-09-30
  Landowners challenged a circuit court order of taking under Florida's quick-taking statute. The Second District Court of Appeal upheld the order, finding that the statutory requirements for due process were satisfied and that the acquiring authority demonstrated necessity for acq
• Div. OF Bond Fin. OF the Dep't OF Gen. Servs. of the State of Fla. v. Rainey
  275 So. 2d 551· Fla. 1st DCA· 1973-04-03
  The State of Florida appealed a jury verdict awarding $1,329,000 in compensation for land taken by eminent domain, challenging the trial court's allowance of expert testimony regarding the enhanced value from development investments. The court affirmed, holding that investments m
• State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Cooper
  241 So. 2d 419· Fla. 1st DCA· 1970-12-15
  Evidence of per-unit fill material value may be admitted in a condemnation case as a factor affecting fair market value, even when the land's highest and best use before the taking was not as a borrow pit, provided the jury considers it only as one factor in determining fair mark
• Dade Cnty. v. Maule Indus., Inc.
  34 Fla. Supp. 162· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1970-07-31
  In an eminent domain proceeding, Dade County sought to acquire property for a highway right-of-way. After the highway project was completed, approximately 5.22 acres of the taken property remained unused and surplus. The court granted the property owner's motion to delete the sur
• Dade Cnty. v. Taich
  32 Fla. Supp. 46· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1969-04-30
  Court denied county's motion to require mutual exchange of appraisal data and to suppress depositions of county experts in eminent domain proceedings, holding that Florida law does not require concurrent exchange of valuation data before defendant may depose plaintiff's appraiser
• Dade Cnty. v. Priest
  31 Fla. Supp. 134· Dade Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-10-03
  This case addresses whether a mortgagee has standing to contest the amount of just compensation awarded in an eminent domain proceeding. The court held that mortgagees, lacking an estate or interest in the land, cannot participate in determining the property's value but may petit
• Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. Scott
  30 Fla. Supp. 37· Indian River Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-04-25
  In this eminent domain proceeding, the court addressed whether property owners could recover expert witness fees when attorneys testified about the reasonableness of their own attorney's fees. The court held that such expert witness fees are recoverable costs necessarily incurred
• State Rd. Dep't v. S. Puerto RICO Sugar Co.
  30 Fla. Supp. 17· Indian River Cty. Cir. Ct.· 1968-03-29
  The State Road Department sought to acquire fee simple title to a parcel of land containing an active railroad right-of-way belonging to South Puerto Rico Sugar Company for construction of Interstate Highway 1-95. The court held that while the state could condemn the property for
• Williams v. City OF Ocala
  203 So. 2d 185· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-10-10
  This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in an eminent domain proceeding. The appellants argued that the trial court erred by admitting testimony about comparable property sales and by denying their motion for a new trial due to prejudicial statements by opposing counsel.
• Alsina Zapf McCREARY v. Freedman
  196 So. 2d 755· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-03-07
  Where an appellant posts a supersedeas bond and the reversal of the appealed order satisfies the bond condition, the appellee is not entitled to recover damages representing interest on the fund withheld during the appeal. The judgment for such damages must be reversed.
• Emory G. Rich v. Harper Neon Co.
  124 So. 2d 750· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-11-23
  In an eminent domain proceeding, the court reviewed whether a jury should apportion damages between a property owner and tenant, or whether the jury should determine total damages with the court later apportioning among claimants. The court granted certiorari and held that Florid
• Steinhauser v. The City of Jacksonville
  108 Fla. 152· Fla.· 1933-01-27
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a condemnation judgment, holding that the appellant failed to properly preserve for appeal the issue of whether the jury viewed the premises, as required by statute.