Eminent Domain

2,189 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 74 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• United States v. Vater
  259 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1958-09-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district judge erred by deciding just compensation issues on the record made before commissioners without a full trial de novo, violating due process.
• In re United States Praying for a Writ of Mandamus or Writ of Prohibition
  257 F.2d 844· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district judge lacks the power to vacate a declaration of taking based on the inadequacy of the estimated compensation, as this function is vested in the acquiring authority.
• United States v. Mahowald
  209 F.2d 751· 8th Cir.· 1954-01-21 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the stipulation agreeing to the trial date as the 'time of taking' for valuation purposes did not constitute an actual taking of the property, and therefore, interest on the award should not accrue from the trial date but from the later date of the government'
• Waddell v. Chicago Land Clearance Comm'n
  206 F.2d 748· 7th Cir.· 1953-08-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the appeal was untimely and frivolous, and therefore dismissed it.
• United States v. Turner
  175 F.2d 644· 5th Cir.· 1949-06-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the nature of the suit remained a condemnation proceeding, and claimants had the burden to prove their title to the land taken.
• State of Cal. v. United States (three cases)
  169 F.2d 914· 9th Cir.· 1948-09-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that land laid out as streets on an official map by the California Board of Tide Land Commissioners, and subsequently sold by lots according to that map, constitutes a complete dedication to public use, even if the land is submerged. The valuation of such dedicated
• United States v. 25.936 Acres OF Land
  153 F.2d 277· 3d Cir.· 1946-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The United States acquires title to condemned land free of prior liens, with compensation paid for the land itself, not its encumbrances.
• United States v. 3.544 Acres OF Land
  147 F.2d 596· 3d Cir.· 1945-02-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion to strike the landowner's expert testimony, nor in limiting cross-examination, as the testimony was admitted to test the basis of the valuation and the jury was properly cautioned.
• United States v. Delano Park Homes, Inc.
  146 F.2d 473· 2d Cir.· 1944-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that wartime restrictions on building materials and land use must be considered in determining condemnation awards, and expert testimony based on sales made under threat of condemnation is admissible.
• United States v. Carey
  143 F.2d 445· 9th Cir.· 1944-06-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the condemnation petition and vacating the judgment on the declaration of taking, as jurisdiction was properly established and the proceedings were not subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution or procedural defects.
• John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Casey
  139 F.2d 207· 1st Cir.· 1943-11-29 ·cited 18×
  The court clarified that rental and condemnation monies are not general assets of the estate and reserved judgment on the distribution of condemnation monies between the mortgagee and the debtor.
• Miller v. United States
  137 F.2d 592· 3d Cir.· 1943-08-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a jury verdict in a condemnation case, supported by substantial evidence and approved by the trial court, is conclusive on appeal, even if arguably against the weight of the evidence. Speculative claims, like a "mental hazard" from a dam, are not compensable d
• Wash. Water Power Co. v. United States
  135 F.2d 541· 9th Cir.· 1943-04-30 ·cited 18×
  The court held that evidence of power site value was inadmissible because riparian owners have no property right in the power inherent in a stream against the United States. The court also held that the government is not obligated to pay taxes that had attached as a lien to the c
• United States v. Wise
  131 F.2d 851· 4th Cir.· 1942-11-12 ·cited 18×
  The admission of evidence regarding reproduction costs of improvements was proper when accompanied by clear jury instructions that it was only to aid in determining fair market value, and not to be added up as separate components of value.
• Holley v. United States
  124 F.2d 909· 6th Cir.· 1942-01-10 ·cited 18×
  Interest paid by a city on deferred condemnation awards is not exempt from federal income tax.
• Rubert Hermanos, Inc. v. People of Puerto RICO
  118 F.2d 752· 1st Cir.· 1941-03-31 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an order appointing a receiver to manage a dissolved corporation's assets, beyond preserving specific excess land subject to an option, was an improvident exercise of discretion and a final decision appealable to this court.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Duval Cnty.
  114 Fla. 254· Fla.· 1934-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a Circuit Court order granting an injunction to compel Atlantic Coast Line Railroad to construct a street crossing and authorizing the county to construct it at the railroad's expense. The court held that because the railroad right-of-way is pri
• The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Bear
  43 Fla. 319· Fla.· 1901-06-01 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a railroad company's writ of error because the company failed to pay the compensation awarded to a landowner for condemned land. This failure rendered the condemnation proceedings null and void, leaving nothing for the appellate court to review
• Jacksonville v. Chas. S. Adams
  28 Fla. 631· Fla.· 1891-06-01 ·cited 18×
  Jacksonville, Tampa & Key West Railway Company appeals an ejectment judgment and seeks to withhold the mandate of possession to allow condemnation proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court affirms the ejectment judgment but withholds the mandate of possession to permit the railroad
• Pierpont v. LEE Cnty.
  710 So. 2d 958· Fla.· 1998-03-12 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a condemning authority's good-faith estimate of value in eminent domain proceedings does not constitute a "written offer" for purposes of calculating attorney's fees under section 73.092, Florida Statutes. The Court rejected landowners' argumen
• State v. LaBELLE Phoenix Corp.
  696 So. 2d 947· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-07-11 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals the award of attorney's fees in an eminent domain case, arguing the trial court applied the wrong statutory formula. The court holds that section 73.092(1), which bases fees on a percentage of benefits achieved, applies rather than
• Fitchik v. NEW Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.
  873 F.2d 655· 3d Cir.· 1989-04-17 ·cited 17×·via Power Of Eminent Domain
  The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude railroad workers from suing NJTRO in federal court under FELA because NJTRO, a subsidiary of NJT, is not an alter ego of the state of New Jersey.
• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Broward Cnty.
  421 So. 2d 681· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-11-03 ·cited 17×
  Florida East Coast Railway appeals a non-final order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding where Broward County sought to condemn airspace easement rights above the railroad's property to create a clear zone for airport runway 27L. The court upheld the taking, finding it comp
• Division OF Administration v. Decker
  408 So. 2d 1056· Fla. 2d DCA· 1981-11-13 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appealed a condemnation damages award of $776,000 for a temporary construction easement, arguing the trial court improperly excluded its expert testimony on the easement's value and construction limitations. The appellate court reversed an
• City OF Lakeland v. Bunch
  293 So. 2d 66· Fla.· 1974-04-03 ·cited 17×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a trial court judgment declaring four condemnation statutes unconstitutional, holding that Florida's eminent domain procedures provide adequate procedural due process through notice and a meaningful hearing prior to any transfer of property owne
• Hillsborough Cnty. Aviation Auth. v. Corando Benitez, Jr.
  200 So. 2d 194· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-05-24 ·cited 17×
  The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority appealed a trial court judgment requiring it to condemn an aviation easement over residents' properties near Tampa International Airport. The court held that low-altitude jet aircraft overflights at 250-500 feet constitute a taking of ai
• Lovett v. The City OF Jacksonville Beach
  187 So. 2d 96· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-06-02 ·cited 17×
  Property owner W. R. Lovett appealed a condemnation judgment awarding compensation for his reversionary fee interest in property taken by Jacksonville Beach. The court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the March 17, 1965 judgment because the appeal was untimely, and upheld t
• Catholic Burse Endowment Fund, Inc. v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  180 So. 2d 513· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-12-03 ·cited 17×
  The Catholic Burse Endowment Fund appealed an eminent domain judgment where the State Road Department condemned its land for use as a borrow pit to obtain fill material for Interstate 75 construction. The court affirmed the taking and the $56,000 valuation, holding that the Depar
• United States v. Certain Interests IN Prop. IN Champaign Cnty.
  271 F.2d 379· 7th Cir.· 1959-10-21 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the federal government can condemn a leasehold interest subject to a mortgage under federal eminent domain law, and that the district court erred in applying state law to the contrary. The court also affirmed the compensation award amount.
• Edwards v. Miami Shores Vill.
  40 So.2d 360· Fla.· 1949-04-29 ·cited 17×
  This case concerns an appeal from an order granting a new trial in an eminent domain proceeding. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial when there was substantial competent evidence to support the jury's
• United States v. Savannah Shipyards, Inc.
  139 F.2d 953· 5th Cir.· 1944-01-11 ·cited 17×
  The court held that while certain expenditures were improperly admitted as evidence of construction cost, this did not require reversal due to jury instructions and the collateral nature of the error. However, the court erred in awarding 7% interest on the judgment, which should
• Gardens Country Club, Inc. v. Palm Beach Cnty.
  712 So. 2d 398· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-03-11 ·cited 16×
  Gardens Country Club sought damages for inverse condemnation and due process violations after Palm Beach County refused to certify its development application under the 1980 Comprehensive Plan, instead requiring compliance with a proposed 1989 Plan that reduced allowable density.
• L.N. Murray v. Dep't OF Transp.
  687 So. 2d 825· Fla.· 1997-01-30 ·cited 16×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that in eminent domain cases involving partial takings of established businesses, business damages need not be calculated using a rigid formula requiring all fixed expenses to be deducted from lost sales. Instead, courts may permit expert testimony
• State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Manoli
  645 So. 2d 1093· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-11-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that when calculating business damages based on lost profits in an eminent domain case, the reasonable value of the owner's services must be deducted as wages.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Dep't OF Transp.
  537 So. 2d 92· Fla.· 1989-01-05 ·cited 16×
  Texaco, a long-term lessee and wholesale supplier of gasoline at a service station, claimed business damages under Florida's eminent domain statute when the Department of Transportation took part of the property. The Florida Supreme Court held that Texaco, as a mere wholesaler wi
• City OF Madison v. Bear Creek Water Ass'n, Inc.
  816 F.2d 1057· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-15 ·cited 16×
  7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) prohibits municipal condemnation of water association facilities financed by the FmHA during the term of the loan.
• United States v. 33.5 Acres OF Land
  789 F.2d 1396· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that evidence of potential noxious weed infestation, affecting market value at the time of taking, is admissible as severance damages in a condemnation proceeding.
• Auton v. Dade City
  783 F.2d 1009· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Florida statutes provide a clearly articulated state policy authorizing Dade City's anticompetitive conduct regarding water well construction, thus qualifying for state action exemption.
• Crigger v. Fla. Power Corp.
  469 So. 2d 941· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-05-30 ·cited 16×
  In an inverse condemnation action, the date of taking is the date the defendant first wrongfully appropriated the property, not the date of a subsequent formal order of taking.
• Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. NEW England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, Inc.
  762 F.2d 1137· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) did not violate due process by requiring employers to make withdrawal liability payments, even if withdrawal was involuntary.
• The Sch. Bd. OF Broward Cnty. v. C.E. Viele
  459 So. 2d 354· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-10-31 ·cited 16×
  A condemning authority's decision on property necessity will not be overruled if it acted legally, in good faith, and did not abuse its discretion. The trial court erred by applying an incorrect legal standard and substituting its judgment for the condemning authority's.
• Stewart v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  714 F.2d 977· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-02 ·cited 16×
  Interest paid by a city in a condemnation proceeding, even if pursuant to an agreement, is not exempt from taxation under I.R.C. § 103(a) because it does not arise from the city's borrowing power. Capital gain from appreciated securities transferred to a controlled corporation an
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. Onelia Gutierrez and Angel Gutierrez
  433 So. 2d 1337· Fla. 2d DCA· 1983-07-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the permanent flooding of the appellees' land constituted a taking by inverse condemnation, but the temporary flooding of their residence did not, supporting a tort claim instead.
• Citadel Corp. v. Puerto RICO Hwy. Auth.
  695 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-22 ·cited 16×·via Power Of Eminent Domain
  Damage actions against governmental entities for land use policies are not cognizable in federal court, even if the regulation constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
• Ala. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. First Nat'l Bank OF Akron
  684 F.2d 789· 11th Cir.· 1982-09-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Alabama Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AEC) is entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain in Florida and that its construction plans do not violate Florida law, affirming the district court's judgment.
• United States v. 8.41 Acres OF Land
  680 F.2d 388· 5th Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the condemned strips of land were not constructively severed from the parent tracts and that the before-and-after valuation method, based on the highest and best use as industrial sites, should be applied.
• Edwards v. Ark. Power & Light Co.
  683 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 16×
  The court applies Pullman abstention, finding unsettled state law questions regarding res judicata and bad-faith claims may determine the federal due process claim.
• Plymouth Cnty. Nuclear Info. Comm., Inc. v. Boston Edison Co.
  655 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's order striking claims for injunctive relief was not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate serious or irreparable harm pending final judgment.
• State v. Gables-By-The-Sea, Inc.
  374 So. 2d 582· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-08-07 ·cited 16×·via Eminent Domain Proceedings
  The State of Florida appealed a trial court's award of $850,000 in attorneys' fees to the property owner in an inverse condemnation proceeding involving a taking of coastal property. The appellate court affirmed the determination that condemnation became imminent on January 18, 1
• City OF ST. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel Co.
  352 So. 2d 149· Fla. 2d DCA· 1977-11-23 ·cited 16×
  St. Petersburg sought to condemn waterfront property owned by Vinoy Park Hotel Company for a public park and recreational area. The trial court denied the condemnation, finding the city failed to prove public necessity and had conflicting plans for the property's use. The appella