Eminent Domain

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

• State v. Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co.
  262 So. 2d 480· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-05-23 ·cited 4×
  Florida Department of Transportation sought condemnation of a 30-foot strip of railroad right-of-way land to expand U.S. Highway 1. The trial court struck the state's claim that it owned the property through statutory dedication based on four years of maintenance, and awarded the
• 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
• Lamm v. Volpe
  449 F.2d 1202· 10th Cir.· 1971-10-27 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment, finding the appellant lacked standing and that the case was rendered moot by subsequent state legislation.
• United States v. 22.95 Acres OF Land
  450 F.2d 125· 9th Cir.· 1971-09-23 ·cited 4×
  The Fifth Amendment's definition of 'property' does not extend to mere hopes and expectations of lease renewal, even if they have market value.
• United States v. 1
  446 F.2d 1234· 10th Cir.· 1971-08-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limitation on the number of comparable sales was not an error of law, and while the Commission's initial denial of additional sales lacked proper consideration of comparability, the District Court's subsequent review and denial based on lack of comparabili
• Hill v. Victoria Cnty. Drainage Dist. NO. 3
  441 F.2d 416· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from hearing the case, dismissing the complaint without prejudice, because state law issues might resolve the controversy and avoid federal constitutional questions.
• Levit v. State
  248 So. 2d 542· Fla. 1st DCA· 1971-03-25 ·cited 4×
• Corbett Motor Supply, Inc. v. City OF Orlando
  245 So. 2d 93· Fla. 4th DCA· 1971-02-17 ·cited 4×
• Tenneco, Inc. v. Greater Lafourche Port Comm'n
  427 F.2d 1061· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the condition in the Department of Public Works letter did not require Tenneco to pay for pipeline alterations outside the original state-granted right of way for the bayou crossing.
• 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.
• The Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation v. The United States
  417 F.2d 1340· Ct. Cl.· 1969-11-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' prior proof of loss was inadequate because it did not apply the correct measure of damages, and therefore, the case must be remanded for a new trial.
• United States v. Certain Land IN the City OF Fort Worth
  414 F.2d 1026· 5th Cir.· 1969-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to give jury instructions that would have emphasized the weight of a prior sale of the condemned property, nor in permitting comment on the government's failure to call an appraiser it had hired.
• United States v. 959.68 Acres OF Land
  415 F.2d 401· 3d Cir.· 1969-08-05 ·cited 4×
  Enhancement in value due to a public project is not compensable if the government disclosed from the outset a probability that the land would be taken.
• United States v. TWO Tracts OF Land IN the Town OF Brookhaven
  412 F.2d 347· 2d Cir.· 1969-05-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a government appraisal used to secure congressional appropriations is not admissible against the government in a condemnation trial, even if state law might permit it.
• 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
• City OF ST. Paul v. Chicago
  413 F.2d 762· 8th Cir.· 1969-05-06 ·cited 4×
  A zoning ordinance restricting building heights is a valid exercise of police power if reasonably related to public welfare, even if it depreciates property values or serves aesthetic purposes.
• United States upon the relation & for the Use of the Tenn. Valley Auth. v. 137 Acres OF Land
  406 F.2d 1283· 6th Cir.· 1969-02-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the landowners are entitled to compensation for the enhancement in value caused by the state's construction of a highway interchange, as this enhancement was not solely attributable to the TVA's dam project.
• United States v. 811.92 Acres OF Land
  404 F.2d 303· 6th Cir.· 1968-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred by summarizing testimony taken outside the jury's presence, which introduced new evidence and prejudiced the appellants.
• Young v. Hillsborough Cnty.
  215 So. 2d 300· Fla.· 1968-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The Florida Supreme Court granted certiorari in this condemnation case to resolve whether business damages should be awarded when a partial taking of property destroys an established business. The Court held that Florida Statute Section 73.071(3)(b) expressly provides for busines
• Hungerford v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  212 So. 2d 782· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-07-17 ·cited 4×
  The Hungerfords appealed a jury verdict awarding them $5,000 in damages for the taking and severance of their property by the State Road Department and Hernando County. The primary issue was whether expert appraisal testimony from the State's witness should have been stricken bec
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Myers
  211 So. 2d 33· Fla. 1st DCA· 1968-06-04 ·cited 4×
  A tenant is not entitled to recover the cost of moving personal property from leased premises that were not taken in an eminent domain proceeding.
• United States v. 344.85 Acres OF Land
  384 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing the government's proffered jury instruction, as its 'best evidence' language was misleading and the jury instructions provided were adequate.
• Sanders v. Erreca
  377 F.2d 960· 9th Cir.· 1967-05-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the amended complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act, as there was no deprivation of a federally secured right. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial based
• United States v. Certain Prop. Located In the Borough OF Manhattan
  374 F.2d 138· 2d Cir.· 1967-03-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the cost of acquiring leases, and the subsequent instruction to commissioners to disregard these costs, was an error requiring remand for redetermination of just compensation. However, the court found no error in excluding e
• W., Inc. v. United States
  374 F.2d 218· 5th Cir.· 1967-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the federal government's authority to condemn property for public use, including the character and extent of the interest taken, is vested in the Secretary and not subject to judicial review absent bad faith, and that federal condemnation proceedings are gover
• United States v. Wake Payne and Delight Payne
  368 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1966-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the commission's findings regarding damages for a flowage easement were not clearly erroneous and were properly accepted by the district court.
• United States v. Bowman
  367 F.2d 768· 7th Cir.· 1966-10-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's motion to strike defenses was properly granted because the necessity and purpose of a taking for a public project are legislative matters not subject to judicial review, and allegations of bad faith or improper purpose were insufficient.
• United States v. 531.13 Acres OF Land
  366 F.2d 915· 4th Cir.· 1966-09-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claimants are not entitled to compensation for the loss of waste disposal use of a river or for the loss of water power generated by a dam, as these are not vested property rights when taken by the United States under its Commerce Clause powers.
• King v. United States
  364 F.2d 235· 5th Cir.· 1966-07-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the firearms were not subject to forfeiture because the government failed to prove that the purchaser willfully caused a violation of the Federal Firearms Act's record-keeping 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
• Commercial Acceptance Corp. v. Barnes
  179 So. 2d 251· Fla. 1st DCA· 1965-10-14 ·cited 4×
  Unsupported and conclusory allegations in an untimely answer are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment when the moving party provides supporting evidence.
• United States v. Fort Smith River Dev. Corp.
  349 F.2d 522· 8th Cir.· 1965-08-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the District Court erred by limiting its consideration of benefits to only navigation, failing to consider other special and direct benefits arising from bank stabilization, channel rectification, and flood control, which were also purposes of the taking.
• United States v. Certain Parcels OF Land IN the City OF Philadelphia
  339 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1964-12-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the lower court erred in applying res judicata because the lessee was not properly notified of the condemnation proceedings and distribution of funds.
• Alva A. Aaron v. The United States
  340 F.2d 655· Ct. Cl.· 1964-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs in case No. 489-58 are entitled to recover just compensation for a permanent flight easement, with the date of taking determined to be August 1953. The plaintiffs in case No. 42-60 are not entitled to recover.
• Clay King and Dorothy Lee King v. Grand River DAM Auth.
  336 F.2d 682· 10th Cir.· 1964-09-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury verdict was within the range of evidence and that the trial court's instructions, even if potentially misstating federal law, were not prejudicial to the landowners.
• Coos Cnty. Sheep Co. v. United States
  331 F.2d 456· 9th Cir.· 1964-04-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the United States exceeded its rights under the easement by removing live trees adjacent to the power line that did not overhang it, and thus the landowners are entitled to just compensation for this taking.
• 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
• Lottie M. Gilman Bailey v. United States
  325 F.2d 571· 1st Cir.· 1963-12-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a trial court has discretion to allow expert appraisers to testify about comparable sale prices, even if their knowledge is based on hearsay.
• United States v. Rainwater
  325 F.2d 62· 8th Cir.· 1963-11-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in modifying a commissioner's report without a transcript, hearing, or additional evidence.
• Schroeder v. 171.74 Acres OF Land
  318 F.2d 311· 8th Cir.· 1963-06-03 ·cited 4×
  The federal court correctly applied res judicata to uphold the Nebraska state court's judgment regarding land ownership, as the parties had litigated and the Nebraska court had jurisdiction over the subject matter.
• Jacksonville Expressway Auth. v. Bennett
  149 So. 2d 74· Fla. 1st DCA· 1963-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The Jacksonville Expressway Authority appealed an interlocutory order in an eminent domain proceeding that denied its motion to amend its declaration of taking and authorized disbursement of deposited funds to the property owner. The court held that the order was interlocutory an
• United States v. 1.357 Acres OF Land
  308 F.2d 200· 7th Cir.· 1962-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The lessor sued the lessee for defaults under a 99-year lease and alleged a sham assignment to a corporation to avoid liability, seeking to set aside the assignment and recover damages.
• Fla. Power Corp. v. James W. Griffin et ux.
  144 So. 2d 104· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-08-10 ·cited 4×
  Florida Power Corporation appealed a condemnation proceeding in which the trial court denied its request to condemn an easement for future danger trees adjacent to a 100-foot transmission line right-of-way, without requiring specific land area description. The appellate court aff
• Kingdon Gould v. United States
  301 F.2d 557· D.C. Cir.· 1962-03-15 ·cited 4×
  Interest is not recoverable as part of just compensation for property taken by eminent domain prior to the date of taking, which is when payment is deposited into the court registry.
• Cuyahoga Cnty. v. United States
  294 F.2d 775· Ct. Cl.· 1961-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The United States has no legal obligation to pay the county for taxes on condemned land because the government's liability was discharged by paying the determined just compensation into court, but it has an equitable responsibility to share the loss due to its attorney's negligen
• Brown v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist.
  292 F.2d 395· 5th Cir.· 1961-06-30 ·cited 4×
  The federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss the case, allowing state courts to address the issues, particularly when state law interpretation and injunctive relief are involved.
• 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
• Dade Cnty. v. Cross
  127 So. 2d 141· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-02-20 ·cited 4×
  This case concerns whether architect fees for planning building alterations, presented as an element of damage in an eminent domain suit, can also be recovered as costs. The court held that such fees, if claimed as damages, cannot be awarded again as costs.
• Richard v. United States
  285 F.2d 129· Ct. Cl.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that profits from undamaged trees should be considered in determining just compensation for the taken easement, and that the lemon grove was not damaged.
• Hickey v. Illinois Central Railroad
  278 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1960-05-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that plaintiffs, as citizens and taxpayers, lacked standing to sue on behalf of the federal, state, or municipal governments and failed to establish federal jurisdiction for claims on behalf of the state or city, nor did they properly bring a class action.