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

• Ball v. City OF Tallahassee
  281 So. 2d 333· Fla.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a condemnation order for a perpetual easement, holding that the condemning authority must initially present evidence of reasonable necessity for taking specific property, and that abuse of discretion alone can override the authority's eminent do
• Harney v. United States
  306 F.2d 523· 1st Cir.· 1962-07-18 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the indictment sufficiently alleged an offense under the conspiracy statute and that the evidence supported the jury's guilty verdicts, rejecting claims of prejudicial publicity and errors in evidence rulings.
• In re G. & A. Books, Inc. v. Stern
  770 F.2d 288· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the Times Square Rehabilitation Project, while impacting adult businesses, was a content-neutral urban renewal effort serving substantial government interests and thus did not violate the First Amendm
• Baltimore Bank FOR Coops. v. Farmers Cheese Coop. & Commonwealth of Pa. Milk Mktg. Bd.
  583 F.2d 104· 3d Cir.· 1978-08-25 ·cited 32×
  The Court held that the district court's order abstaining from exercising diversity jurisdiction and directing the parties to proceed before the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (MMB) was appealable as a final order. The Court reversed the district court's decision, finding that
• Woodland Mkt. Realty Co. v. City OF Cleveland
  426 F.2d 955· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-19 ·cited 32×
  A property owner whose property is adjacent to an urban renewal project cannot maintain an action for compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments for depreciation in value caused by the project's establishment.
• Tampa Phosphate R.R. Co. v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  418 F.2d 387· 5th Cir.· 1969-10-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to dissolve the preliminary injunction, as federal law authorized the injunction and principles of comity did not bar it.
• The Sill Corp. v. United States
  343 F.2d 411· 10th Cir.· 1965-03-04 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in allowing the jury to consider capitalization of net income both before and after debt service, nor in admitting evidence of comparable sales for determining the capitalization rate, nor in allowing the jury to consider the replac
• Evans v. United States
  326 F.2d 827· 8th Cir.· 1964-01-30 ·cited 32×
  Jury verdicts within the range of valuation testimony are conclusive and will not be disturbed as inadequate, and evidence of prior private sales by a witness is inadmissible without a proper foundation.
• United States v. Buhler
  305 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the commission erred in valuing airfield improvements based on reproduction costs without sufficient evidence of demand, and in assuming residential use for severance damages when the land was leased for farming.
• United States v. Certain Interests IN Prop. IN Cumberland Cnty.
  296 F.2d 264· 4th Cir.· 1961-11-06 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a District Court may substitute its own findings for those of a commission if the commission's findings are clearly erroneous, especially when based on unsound expert testimony.
• United States v. Twin City Power Co. OF Ga.
  253 F.2d 197· 5th Cir.· 1958-02-28 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge believes the appellate court should review the commission's findings for clear error, not the district court's rejection of them.
• Slattery Co., Inc. v. United States
  231 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1956-03-07 ·cited 32×
• United States v. Hayes
  172 F.2d 677· 9th Cir.· 1949-02-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while a trial court has discretion to set aside an excessive jury verdict in a condemnation case, it cannot strike a declaration of taking and dismiss the proceeding after title has vested in the government.
• United States v. City OF NEW York
  165 F.2d 526· 2d Cir.· 1948-01-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its valuation methods for condemned property, particularly by improperly applying the 'Unit Rule' and by duplicating awards for leasehold interests. A new appraisal is required.
• Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. United States
  147 F.2d 786· 4th Cir.· 1945-02-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the City of Baltimore was entitled only to nominal damages for the taking of its interest in public alleys, as its interest was not equivalent to full ownership and the value was reflected in the abutting properties.
• Meadows v. United States
  144 F.2d 751· 4th Cir.· 1944-07-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the government was entitled to have the value of the property, including timber, fixed as a whole by the jury, and that objections to the trial procedure and jury charge, not raised below, could not be considered on appeal.
• Robertson v. Brooksville and Inverness Railway
  100 Fla. 195· Fla.· 1930-07-19 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a condemnation judgment where a railroad sought to condemn easements for a railroad right of way and a pipe line to access water from a pit on the defendant's property. The court held that while railroads may condemn land for necessary water sup
• City of Ocala v. Anderson
  58 Fla. 415· Fla.· 1909-06-01 ·cited 32×
  The City of Ocala appealed a decree enjoining it from constructing a public street on Anderson's land without compensation or condemnation proceedings. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the injunction, holding that the city's unconstitutional taking of private property without d
• State v. Skidmore
  720 So. 2d 1125· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-11-04 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Department of Transportation appeals a trial court's award of $900,000 in attorney's fees, $52,180 in costs, and $56,400 in expert appraisal costs to property owner Robert Skidmore in an eminent domain proceeding involving the Roosevelt Bridge. The appellate court rev
• United States v. 36.96 Acres OF Land
  754 F.2d 855· 7th Cir.· 1985-02-22 ·cited 31×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Council should be allowed to intervene because its environmental and conservation interests are legally protectable and inadequately represented by the government.
• Hauben v. Harmon
  605 F.2d 920· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-02 ·cited 31×
  The dissent argues that the sellers' actions and inquiries before signing the contract demonstrated the materiality of the condemnation possibility, which they failed to disclose.
• Staninger v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth.
  182 So. 2d 483· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-02-10 ·cited 31×
  Landowners challenged a condemnation award for their property, arguing the trial court erred in allowing the jury to consider restrictive covenants on the land when determining compensation, in excluding expert testimony about removal costs, and in admitting prior purchase price
• United States v. Certain Prop. Located IN the Borough OF Manhattan
  306 F.2d 439· 2d Cir.· 1962-07-05 ·cited 31×
  The court held that federal condemnation proceedings must apply state law to determine what constitutes real property, including fixtures, and that tenants may be entitled to compensation for fixtures they own under state law, subject to lease terms.
• United States v. Martin
  267 F.2d 764· 10th Cir.· 1959-05-27 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the United States, by initiating a suit concerning water rights under Senate Document 80, consented to adjudication of counterclaims related to its actions, and that the impairment of vested water rights constitutes a taking requiring just compensation under t
• De Soto Cnty. v. Highsmith
  60 So. 2d 915· Fla.· 1952-10-21 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a county, having voluntarily dismissed condemnation proceedings, must still pay the landowner's reasonable attorney's fees incurred during those proceedings, even in a separate suit, based on existing statutes. This clarifies that statutory pro
• City of Miami v. Romer
  58 So. 2d 849· Fla.· 1952-06-04 ·cited 31×
  This case concerns whether a city ordinance establishing a building setback line constitutes a "taking" of private property requiring compensation. The court held that such ordinances, when enacted under the police power for public welfare, do not require compensation, unless the
• The State of Fla. ex rel. Rivers H. Buford v. City of Tampa & D. P. Davis
  88 Fla. 196· Fla.· 1924-09-09 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the City of Tampa's right to sell submerged lands in Hillsborough Bay to D. P. Davis for development as a residential subdivision. The court held that the State, through its Legislature, had constitutional authority to divest itself of title to su
• Dep't OF Transp. v. Fortune Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  532 So. 2d 1267· Fla.· 1988-08-18 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 337.27(3), which permits the Department of Transportation to condemn an entire parcel of land even when only part is needed for a public project, if doing so costs less than condemning only the needed portion. The
• Midkiff v. TOM
  702 F.2d 788· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 30×
  The Hawaii Land Reform Act's eminent domain provisions are unconstitutional as they authorize the taking of private property for a predominantly private use, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• United States v. 429.59 Acres OF Land
  612 F.2d 459· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Commission's findings regarding the highest and best use of the property as a marina, the valuation of the property as an economic unit, and the interest rate for the deficiency award were not clearly erroneous and were supported by the record.
• Benenson v. The United States
  548 F.2d 939· Ct. Cl.· 1977-01-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the government's actions so restricted and interfered with the plaintiffs' use of their property as to constitute a complete taking of their fee interest, entitling them to just compensation.
• United States v. 100 Acres OF Land
  468 F.2d 1261· 9th Cir.· 1972-09-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence regarding the 'developer's residual approach' for valuation and evidence of probable use of adjacent tidelands. It also held that claims for interest at a rate higher than statutory and for lit
• Nat'l By-Products, Inc. v. The United States
  405 F.2d 1256· Ct. Cl.· 1969-01-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Government's representations regarding the construction of a right-bank levee did not constitute a binding contractual obligation due to a material misunderstanding of the parties' intentions and the lack of mutual assent on that specific issue.
• Clay Calhoun and Sybil Calhoun v. United States
  384 F.2d 180· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the failure of the court reporter to record closing arguments, coupled with the Assistant United States Attorney's inflammatory and prejudicial remarks during argument, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Certain Prop. Located IN the Borough OF Manhattan
  344 F.2d 142· 2d Cir.· 1965-04-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that federal condemnation proceedings should apply state property law to determine what constitutes a 'taking,' and that tenants are entitled to compensation for trade fixtures that are part of the real property under state law, even if the government argues for a
• Corbett v. E. AIR Lines, Inc.
  166 So. 2d 196· Fla. 1st DCA· 1964-06-09 ·cited 30×
  Owners of a restaurant adjacent to a municipal airport sued four airlines for nuisance and trespass caused by jet aircraft operations. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the airlines' operations, conducted pursuant to governmental regulations, did not con
• Guarria v. Duke, Jr.
  117 So. 2d 5· Fla. 3d DCA· 1960-01-11 ·cited 30×
  Property owners appealed a condemnation judgment by the State Road Department of Florida, challenging whether damages for destruction of an established business are compensable when the entire property is taken, and whether attorneys' fees awarded were grossly inadequate. The cou
• Burkhart v. United States
  210 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1954-02-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the judgment was not final and therefore not appealable because the district court failed to make an express determination and direction under Rule 54(b) regarding the adjudication of less than all claims.
• Hav-A-Tampa Cigar Co. v. Johnson
  149 Fla. 148· Fla.· 1941-12-19 ·cited 30×
  Hav-A-Tampa Cigar Company challenged Chapter 20446 of the Florida Acts of 1941, which restricted advertising signboards near public highways, arguing the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated property rights. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statut
• Ga. Power Co. v. 138.30 Acres of Land
  617 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-27 ·cited 29×
  The court held that state law should govern the definition of just compensation in a condemnation action by a private, state-controlled utility for a state project, despite a federal license, due to the traditional state control over property rights and minimal federal interest.
• Behm v. Division OF Administration
  292 So. 2d 437· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-03-29 ·cited 29×
  In this eminent domain case, property owners claimed business damages of $19,175 based on uncontradicted expert testimony, but the jury awarded only $9,500. The court held that uncontradicted expert testimony is persuasive but not binding, and the jury may reject or discount it b
• State Rd. Dep't of Fla. v. Lewis
  190 So. 2d 598· Fla. 1st DCA· 1966-09-06 ·cited 29×
  The State Road Department appealed a judgment in an inverse condemnation suit brought by the Lewises for damages caused by the state's construction of a viaduct on their garage property. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the Department's challenges to the proce
• White v. Pinellas Cnty.
  185 So. 2d 468· Fla.· 1966-04-13 ·cited 29×
  Allen and Mary White petitioned for a writ of certiorari to challenge a summary judgment dismissing their takings claim against Pinellas County for destruction of valuable trees and vegetation on their property during a highway improvement project. The Florida Supreme Court held
• Inland Waterway Develop. v. City of Jacksonville
  38 So. 2d 676· Fla.· 1948-12-17 ·cited 29×
  This case involves a city's eminent domain proceeding to acquire land for an electric generating plant. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the city had the authority to condemn the land and that the defendants failed to demonstrate an abuse of d
• Forbes Pioneer Boat Line v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist.
  77 Fla. 742· Fla.· 1919-05-30 ·cited 29×
  Forbes Pioneer Boat Line sued the Everglades Drainage District Board for recovery of tolls wrongfully collected for passage through a lock on the North New River Canal. The Florida Supreme Court held that the Board, as a public quasi-corporation with limited statutory powers, lac
• Tampa-Hillsborough Cnty. Expressway Auth. v. A.G.W.S. Corp.
  608 So. 2d 52· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-09-23 ·cited 28×
  The dissenting opinion argues that a landowner is not entitled to just compensation for a temporary taking caused by a map of reservation unless the landowner proves a substantial deprivation of economically beneficial use of the land. The dissent contends that the Florida Suprem
• Williams v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  579 So. 2d 226· Fla. 1st DCA· 1991-04-29 ·cited 28×
  In this eminent domain case, Williams Communications challenged a jury verdict awarding severance and business damages following the Department of Transportation's taking of parking lot property. The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial co
• Miller v. The United States
  620 F.2d 812· Ct. Cl.· 1980-04-16 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the trial judge's findings on timber volume, severance damages, and litigation expenses, but modified the interest rate.
• United States v. Bedford Assocs.
  618 F.2d 904· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-05 ·cited 28×
  The court held that it had jurisdiction to hear the government's appeal from the preliminary injunction's condition requiring payment of utilities, and that the district court had jurisdiction to impose such a condition, but the injunction must be modified.
• Pauley Petroleum Inc. v. The United States
  591 F.2d 1308· Ct. Cl.· 1979-01-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove commercial impracticability due to frustration of purpose, as the liability standard remained uncertain and the government's actions were subject to ongoing review.