Eminent Domain

2,187 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Libby ROD & GUN Club v. Poteat
  594 F.2d 742· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that specific appropriations for the Libby Additional Units and Reregulating Dam project (LAURD) constituted sufficient congressional authorization and consent under 33 U.S.C. § 401 for the expenditures.
• NBH Land Co. v. The United States
  576 F.2d 317· Ct. Cl.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 14×
  Actions of defendant's officials in proposing land acquisition and opposing local zoning changes did not constitute a taking under the law of eminent domain.
• United States v. 403.14 Acres OF Land
  553 F.2d 565· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the commission's report was sufficiently detailed to show its reasoning and that the award was supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous.
• United States v. Streets
  531 F.2d 882· 8th Cir.· 1976-02-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the determination of reasonable necessity for substitute public facilities is a judicial function, and the government need only compensate for present needs based on the population at the time of taking, not speculative future needs.
• United States v. 564.54 Acres OF Land
  506 F.2d 796· 3d Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 14×
  The substitute facilities measure of just compensation is available to private owners of non-profit community facilities, not just governmental entities.
• Division OF Administration v. Hillsboro Ass'n, Inc.
  286 So. 2d 578· Fla. 4th DCA· 1973-10-12 ·cited 14×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a jury verdict awarding consequential damages for seawall destruction in an eminent domain proceeding, holding that damages from construction methods are not recoverable in condemnation suits absent negligence, and that there was insu
• City OF Miami v. Culbertson
  281 So. 2d 578· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-08-28 ·cited 14×
• United States v. 58.16 Acres OF Land
  478 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-13 ·cited 14×
  The denial of a landowner's challenge to the government's right to take property in eminent domain is an appealable order if the challenge raises fundamental issues of bad faith or arbitrariness, even if interlocutory.
• United States upon the relation & for the Use of the Tenn. Valley Auth. v. AN Easement & Right-Of-Way Containing 0.1 Acres
  452 F.2d 729· 6th Cir.· 1971-12-09 ·cited 14×
  The 1966 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 does not authorize taxation of costs against the United States in eminent domain proceedings.
• Crawford v. Courtney
  451 F.2d 489· 4th Cir.· 1971-11-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in abstaining from exercising federal diversity jurisdiction in favor of a state court that had prior jurisdiction over the property and fund.
• United States v. 967
  447 F.2d 764· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-25 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the cabin barges, despite being difficult to remove, were personal property and not compensable fixtures in the condemnation of the land. The court also found that Section 111 of the Rivers and Harbors and Flood Control Act of 1970 applied to the case, requiri
• Langston v. City OF Miami Beach
  242 So. 2d 481· Fla. 3d DCA· 1971-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that property owners who received deeds conveying lots without reference to abutting streets do not have a compensable interest in those streets when the municipality condemns the lots.
• United States v. 2
  414 F.2d 965· 5th Cir.· 1969-07-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in disallowing evidence of enhancement in the land's value caused by the original establishment of a space facility, as the Colton land was not publicly disclosed as being within the project's scope at the time of the initial taking.
• Phelps Dodge Corp. v. The Atchison
  400 F.2d 20· 10th Cir.· 1968-09-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating trials, refusing a jury view, or admitting expert testimony on land valuation in condemnation proceedings.
• Esse Forrester O'Brien v. United States
  392 F.2d 949· 5th Cir.· 1968-03-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that while the overall compensation award was largely affirmed, the judgment should be modified to include specific severance damages for the loss of legal access to the new roadway.
• United States v. Thomas F. LEE and wife Ola Mae Lee
  360 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1966-05-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the cost of a survey, necessitated by a dispute over acreage in a condemnation proceeding, is part of the just compensation required by the Fifth Amendment.
• United States v. Certain Land IN the Borough OF Brooklyn
  346 F.2d 690· 2d Cir.· 1965-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the City's acquisition costs and in refusing to consider the cost of substitute playground facilities, requiring a new trial.
• J. A. Tobin Constr. Co. v. United States
  343 F.2d 422· 10th Cir.· 1965-03-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the value of a quarry, enhanced solely by the government's need for it in a public project, is not compensable in a condemnation proceeding.
• United States v. 2
  336 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1964-09-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that testimony regarding speculative future development of remaining land in a condemnation action is inadmissible as it constitutes prejudicial error.
• United States v. 91.69 Acres OF Land
  334 F.2d 229· 4th Cir.· 1964-06-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appeal was not ripe for review and that the challenge to the necessity of the taking is generally not for the Commission to decide.
• United States v. State OF S.D. Game
  329 F.2d 665· 8th Cir.· 1964-04-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that submitting a substitute site theory to the jury in an eminent domain case, rather than solely focusing on market value, was prejudicial error.
• United States v. Chatham
  323 F.2d 95· 4th Cir.· 1963-09-23 ·cited 14×
  The United States acquired no title to the disputed land through its 1935 condemnation proceedings because it failed to provide adequate notice to the true owners, nor did it establish title through adverse possession due to insufficient possession.
• Casey v. Fla. Power Corp.
  157 So. 2d 168· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-09-13 ·cited 14×
  In an eminent domain case involving the condemnation of a 14.5-acre easement for a high-voltage transmission line, the court held that evidence of depreciation to adjacent property based on fear of the towers and lines, or their general unsightliness, is too speculative to suppor
• Alford v. Finch
  155 So. 2d 790· Fla.· 1963-06-28 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission violated landowners' constitutional rights by prohibiting hunting on their private property without compensation, even though the Commission has broad authority to regulate game and establish refuges on
• N. v. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken & Hartford Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. Under Indenture
  316 F.2d 401· D.C. Cir.· 1963-03-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Patent Compensation Board erred in dismissing all claims as time-barred and that certain claims were not cognizable by the Board. Claims for foreign patents, expired domestic patents, and the taking of a non-exclusive license were correctly dismissed, but
• State OF Cal. v. Rank
  293 F.2d 340· 9th Cir.· 1961-03-31 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the suit was not a general adjudication of water rights and thus the United States had not consented to be sued under the McCarran Amendment, and the district court lacked jurisdiction over the United States. However, the suit could proceed against the officia
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. P. A. Shell et a!.
  122 So. 2d 215· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-07-20 ·cited 14×
  The State Road Department sought certiorari to review a discovery order in an eminent domain proceeding requiring it to produce appraisals, surveys, maps, and other valuation evidence before trial. The court held that such work product is protected from pre-trial discovery when t
• Adaman Mut. Water Co. v. United States
  278 F.2d 842· 9th Cir.· 1960-05-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the loss of the right to collect future assessments on condemned land, stemming from an equitable servitude, constitutes a compensable interest under the Fifth Amendment.
• Carlstrom v. United States
  275 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1960-02-15 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a jury could reasonably determine just compensation for multiple property interests in a single condemnation proceeding, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting or excluding evidence.
• Fla. Power Corp. v. Otto Wenzel
  113 So. 2d 747· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-07-10 ·cited 14×
  Florida Power Corporation sought to condemn an easement for a transmission line and also sought the right to remove twenty "danger trees" located adjacent to the right-of-way. The court held that a utility may condemn the privilege of removing adjacent trees without condemning th
• Hunter Giers Hicks v. United States
  266 F.2d 515· 6th Cir.· 1959-05-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that testimony regarding erosion damage was admissible, but the landowner failed to prove increased river current caused by tree cutting. Incidental damages for the power lines' impact on market value were awarded.
• United States v. 396 Corp.
  264 F.2d 704· 2d Cir.· 1959-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's determination of fair rental value, finding that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors, including the government's option and the landlord's advantages and disadvantages.
• Burkhart v. United States & Irwin A. Falk & Vuelta C. Falk
  227 F.2d 659· 9th Cir.· 1955-06-28 ·cited 14×
  A lease agreement cannot alter the character of structures on land as realty for condemnation purposes, and the government's declaration of taking vests title to all realty, including improvements, unless expressly excluded.
• Norman Lumber Co. v. United States
  223 F.2d 868· 4th Cir.· 1955-06-13 ·cited 14×
  A federal judgment of condemnation is not rendered invalid against a subsequent purchaser for value due to failure to index and cross-index the judgment in state court records.
• The State Rd. Dept. OF Fla. v. Lewis
  79 So. 2d 699· Fla.· 1955-01-28 ·cited 14×
• Porter v. Columbia Cnty.
  75 So. 2d 699· Fla.· 1954-11-12 ·cited 14×
  In this eminent domain proceeding, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that testimony regarding ownership interests and damages to property should be excluded during the initial valuation phase of an eminent domain action and that the trial cour
• United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in City of Philadelphia
  215 F.2d 140· 3d Cir.· 1954-08-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Commissioners' valuation was sustainable despite potential calculation errors, and the condemnation was proper despite transitional delays and a minor discrepancy in the initial deposit.
• United States v. Willis
  211 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1954-03-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in setting aside the condemnation judgment, finding the government's decision to acquire the tract was not arbitrary or capricious.
• United States v. Hirsch
  206 F.2d 289· 2d Cir.· 1953-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a post-judgment deposit, even with a reservation of restitution rights, is a valid tender and that the Committee's valuation was supported by sufficient evidence, rejecting both the government's and Hirsch's appeals.
• United States v. Advertising Checking Bureau, Inc.
  204 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1953-05-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government had statutory authority to condemn the leasehold interest and that the tenant was not entitled to compensation due to lease provisions waiving such rights upon condemnation.
• Anderson-Tully Co. v. United States
  189 F.2d 192· 5th Cir.· 1951-05-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government's erected structures on leased land did not become part of the realty and thus were not compensable in a condemnation action, and that the landowner was not prejudiced by the government having the right to open and close.
• Scott v. United States
  161 F.2d 1009· 6th Cir.· 1947-06-03 ·cited 14×
  A directed verdict is improper when there is substantial evidence of fraud or misrepresentation in procuring an option contract, as the issue of validity must be submitted to the jury.
• United States v. Block
  160 F.2d 604· 9th Cir.· 1947-03-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the admission of testimony regarding the market value of appellee's machinery and equipment was not reversible error, and the verdict was supported by the evidence.
• Foster v. United States
  145 F.2d 873· 8th Cir.· 1944-12-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not commit reversible error in its evidentiary rulings or in denying a new trial based on inadequate verdicts.
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Shamberg's Estate
  144 F.2d 998· 2d Cir.· 1944-08-24 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the interest on bonds issued by a state-owned public utility corporation, which are not obligations of the state and are payable solely from the corporation's earnings, is not exempt from federal income tax under the statute exempting interest on "obligations
• Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States
  141 F.2d 562· 5th Cir.· 1944-03-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge on mineral leasehold valuation was erroneous and prejudicial, requiring reversal.
• United States v. 1
  137 F.2d 8· 8th Cir.· 1943-07-07 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court abused its discretion by denying amendments to the declarations of taking and erred in its method of computing interest.
• Redman v. United States
  136 F.2d 203· 4th Cir.· 1943-05-27 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of government experts and evidence of the appellants' prior application for a tax reduction, as the admissibility of expert testimony and such evidence is largely within the trial court's discretion and su
• Chicago v. Taylor
  125 U.S. 161· U.S.· 1888-03-19 ·cited 14×
  Moses Taylor, an owner of property in Chicago that had been used as a coal yard, sued the city for damages caused by the construction of a viaduct on a nearby street that obstructed access to his lot and caused flooding. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Taylor, holding
• Seminole Cnty. v. Faye R. Chandrinos
  816 So. 2d 1241· Fla. 5th DCA· 2002-05-31 ·cited 13×
  Seminole County appeals a trial court's award of expert witness fees to Zook, Moore & Associates and Morris Engineering in an eminent domain proceeding involving property taken from Upsala Presbyterian Church. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses and remands, finding that