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

• Union OIL Co. OF Cal. v. The Honorable Rogers C. B. Morton
  512 F.2d 743· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that an indefinite suspension of a lessee's right to install a drilling platform, based on environmental concerns, could constitute a taking of property requiring compensation, and thus may be beyond the Secretary's statutory authority if not properly justified and
• Carter-Wallace, Inc. v. The United States
  449 F.2d 1374· Ct. Cl.· 1971-10-15 ·cited 28×
  The court should consider patent misuse when determining just compensation for a taking, but it should not necessarily forfeit the entire claim.
• The Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation v. The United States
  437 F.2d 458· Ct. Cl.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes are entitled to recover $6,066,668.78 plus interest, finding that the United States took tribal lands by eminent domain through various dispositions, including sale to settlers and reservation for public purposes.
• Klamath AND Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band of Indians v. The United States
  436 F.2d 1008· Ct. Cl.· 1971-01-22 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the ten unsold 'sustained yield' units of the Klamath Forest were taken by eminent domain on April 13, 1961, and the Klamath Marsh was taken on September 7, 1960; there was no constitutional taking of the Antelope Desert Unit, fringe units, or personal propert
• United States v. 3
  416 F.2d 65· 8th Cir.· 1969-10-07 ·cited 28×
  The court held that landowner opinion testimony on land value, even if not strictly based on market price or comparable sales, is admissible and can support jury awards if it has some foundation in the owner's familiarity with the property.
• Creel v. The City OF Atlanta
  399 F.2d 777· 5th Cir.· 1968-08-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a substantial federal question, but that the district court should have abstained or stayed proceedings pending resolution of a related state condemnation action.
• The Tlingit & Haida Indians OF Alaska & Harry Douglas v. The United States
  389 F.2d 778· Ct. Cl.· 1968-01-19 ·cited 28×
  The court's majority opinion is not provided, but the dissenting judge believes the valuation of certain assets, particularly fisheries and gold mines, is incorrect and speculative.
• Anderson v. State Rd. Dep't
  204 So. 2d 899· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-09-26 ·cited 28×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed two consolidated eminent domain cases where the State Road Department took the defendant's land for highway purposes. The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to strike testimony from the Department'
• Cheshire v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla.
  186 So. 2d 790· Fla. 4th DCA· 1966-03-16 ·cited 28×
  An appraiser's fee incurred by a property owner in condemnation proceedings is allowable as costs if reasonable and necessarily incurred in the defense of the suit, even if the appraiser did not testify; expert witness fee statutes do not exclusively govern cost allowance in emin
• Lovey v. Escambia Cnty.
  141 So. 2d 761· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-06-05 ·cited 28×
  Plaintiffs appealed the denial of an injunction against Escambia County and Southern Bell to prevent use of a public road crossing their property. The court affirmed, holding that Florida Statute § 337.31 creates a conclusive presumption of dedication to the public when a county
• State ex rel. Richard W. Ervin v. Jacksonville Expressway Auth.
  139 So. 2d 135· Fla.· 1962-03-21 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Jacksonville Expressway Authority possesses statutory power to condemn perpetual easements through air space for elevated highway sections, despite statutory language requiring property acquisition in fee simple. The Court reconciled the fe
• Breitbart v. State Rd. Dep't OF Fla.
  116 So. 2d 458· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-12-10 ·cited 28×
  Landowners appealed an eminent domain judgment challenging the jury's award of $450 in attorney fees as grossly inadequate. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that while expert testimony on attorney fees is persuasive, it is not binding on a jury, and the verd
• Bd. OF Comm'rs OF State Insts. v. Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co. cum Testamento annexo
  116 So. 2d 762· Fla.· 1959-11-13 ·cited 28×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that there was no conflict between a District Court of Appeal decision allowing consideration of potential rezoning in a condemnation valuation case and the prior City of Miami Beach v. Hogan decision, because the factual findings in the present cas
• United States v. Buhler
  254 F.2d 876· 5th Cir.· 1958-04-29 ·cited 28×
  The court held that while a jury trial is generally the norm in condemnation cases, the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing a commission due to the exceptional character of the property, but the commission's findings were inadequate for review.
• United States v. City of N.Y.
  168 F.2d 387· 2d Cir.· 1948-05-19 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the proper measure of compensation for a municipality's condemned public facilities is the cost of necessary substitute facilities, and if none are needed, no substantial compensation is awarded.
• Woodville v. United States
  152 F.2d 735· 10th Cir.· 1946-01-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a dissolved municipality is entitled only to nominal damages for the condemnation of its streets when no substitute is required, and that the government's condemnation of a railroad's right of way does not constitute an abandonment triggering forfeiture of the
• Seaboard Air Line Railway v. S. Inv. Co.
  53 Fla. 832· Fla.· 1907-01-01 ·cited 28×
  Southern Investment Company sought to enjoin two railroad companies from constructing and operating a railroad spur track on Stebbins Avenue, which fronted the complainant's property in Manatee, Florida. The Florida Supreme Court held that abutting property owners who hold the fe
• Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Armadillo P'rs, Inc.
  849 So. 2d 279· Fla.· 2003-04-24 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed the Fourth District's decision that excluded expert appraisal testimony regarding severance damages in an eminent domain case involving a partial taking of a shopping center's property. The Court held that an expert appraiser's methodology should
• Charlotte Cnty. v. Gen. Dev. Utils., Inc.
  653 So. 2d 1081· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-13 ·cited 27×
  Charlotte County challenges the Florida Public Service Commission's assertion of jurisdiction over a billing dispute with a water utility after the utility's certificate was cancelled and its facility sold to a governmental entity. The court upholds the PSC's jurisdiction, findin
• Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n
  810 F.2d 1168· D.C. Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously by failing to adequately consider Jersey Central's severe financial plight and the implications of the "used and useful" principle in the context of a massive, failed investment.
• The Cnty. OF Volusia v. Niles
  445 So. 2d 1043· Fla. 5th DCA· 1984-01-26 ·cited 27×
  Volusia County appealed a trial court's grant of a new trial on severance damages in a condemnation case. The court held that the trial judge abused its discretion by ordering a new trial based on the jury's zero damage verdict, as the jury was not instructed on nominal damages a
• Jonez P. Suthoff v. Yazoo Cnty. Indus. Dev. Corp.
  637 F.2d 337· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-17 ·cited 27×·via Eminent Domain Proceedings
  The court held that a complaint alleging deprivation of property rights under color of state law, through misuse of expropriation proceedings, sufficiently states a federal claim to establish subject matter jurisdiction.
• Dade Cnty. v. Gen. Waterworks Corp.
  267 So. 2d 633· Fla.· 1972-07-20 ·cited 27×
  Dade County sought to condemn private water and sewer utility companies through eminent domain to create a unified public utility system. The trial court dismissed the condemnation petition, finding that the County's stated intent to use capitalization of regulated earnings as th
• Glessner v. Duval Cnty.
  203 So. 2d 330· Fla. 1st DCA· 1967-10-17 ·cited 27×
  In an eminent domain proceeding to widen a highway, property owners claimed they were entitled to severance damages and business damages when a portion of their perpetual easement (their only semi-trailer access) was taken. The trial court denied both claims. The court reversed,
• Parker v. Armstrong
  125 So. 2d 138· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-12-07 ·cited 27×
  The Parker court addressed two issues in an eminent domain proceeding: (1) whether a jury may apportion compensation between fee title owners and leaseholders in a single verdict, and (2) whether the property owner or condemning party has the right to open and close the trial. Th
• Coffman v. Fed. Labs., Inc.
  171 F.2d 94· 3d Cir.· 1948-11-09 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the Royalty Adjustment Act and its implementing orders were constitutional and applicable to royalties accrued before their issuance, and that the compensation for taking patent rights during wartime is measured by the value at the time of taking, not inflated
• United States v. 6.74 Acres OF Land IN Dade Cnty.
  148 F.2d 618· 5th Cir.· 1945-04-11 ·cited 27×
  The United States, through the Secretary of War, can condemn the fee simple title to land it already possesses under a lease, regardless of the lease's existence or the landowner's arguments about necessity or good faith.
• The Marianna & Blountstown R.R. Co. v. Maund
  62 Fla. 538· Fla.· 1911-06-01 ·cited 27×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a decree awarding damages for a railroad's unauthorized use of land, holding that the plaintiff lacked a valid cause of action when the suit was filed because he did not own the land at that time and could not retroactively acquire rights throug
• City OF Jacksonville v. Smith
  159 So. 3d 888· Fla. 1st DCA· 2015-02-26 ·cited 26×
  The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's determination that the City of Jacksonville's construction and operation of a fire station on city property inordinately burdened adjacent property owners' land under the Bert J. Harris Jr. Private Property Right
• City OF Pompano Beach v. Yardarm Rest., Inc.
  641 So. 2d 1377· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-09 ·cited 26×
  Yardarm Restaurant sued the City of Pompano Beach for inverse condemnation, alleging the city's obstructionist permitting practices from 1974 to 1985 constituted an unlawful taking of its property. The trial court found a permanent taking based on the city's improper interference
• Fountain v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  678 F.2d 1038· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-18 ·cited 26×·via Power Of Eminent Domain
  The court held that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over claims alleging a taking of property for public use without just compensation, even if the entity lacks eminent domain power, but that abstention is appropriate pending resolution of a parallel state court a
• United States v. 329.73 Acres OF Land
  666 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, and that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence.
• Transok Pipeline Co. v. Maxwell Darks
  565 F.2d 1150· 10th Cir.· 1977-11-14 ·cited 26×
  The court held that federal jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 357 extends to non-Indian parties with interests in land also held by restricted Indians, and that pendent jurisdiction was properly exercised over state law claims against these non-Indian parties. The court also affirme
• Hillsborough Cnty. v. Sapp
  280 So. 2d 443· Fla.· 1973-07-11 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of the condemning authority when there is competent substantial evidence supporting the trial court's finding of no abuse of discretion.
• Male v. Crossroads Assocs.
  469 F.2d 616· 2d Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the pervasive state involvement in the development and operation of the Crossroads Apartments meant its rental practices were subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the refusal to consider welfare recipients for housing constit
• O'Sullivan v. City OF Deerfield Beach
  232 So. 2d 33· Fla. 4th DCA· 1970-02-25 ·cited 26×
  A Florida appellate court held that a city could not unilaterally dismiss an eminent domain action after depositing compensation funds into the court registry and taking title to the property. The court determined that once property is seized and title vests in the condemnor, dis
• United States v. 1
  411 F.2d 1081· 6th Cir.· 1969-06-06 ·cited 26×
  The trial court erred in refusing to consider evidence of the property's potential value as homesites, as such evidence is relevant to determining fair market value based on its highest and best use.
• Couse v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla.
  209 So. 2d 865· Fla.· 1968-05-01 ·cited 26×·via Eminent Domain Proceedings
  The Florida Supreme Court held that it has jurisdiction to review by certiorari an interlocutory order of taking in an eminent domain proceeding, despite the order not being final, because such review is necessary to the Court's prescribed constitutional jurisdiction to decide ap
• Turner v. Kings River Conservation Dist.
  360 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1966-03-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that government officials operating a dam were authorized to interfere with downstream riparian water rights, and the proper remedy for injured parties was a suit for damages in the Court of Claims, not an injunction.
• Harrison-Halsted Cmty. Grp., Inc. v. Hous. & Home Fin. Agency
  310 F.2d 99· 7th Cir.· 1962-11-28 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue in federal court and failed to raise a substantial federal question, thus affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Maiatico v. United States
  302 F.2d 880· D.C. Cir.· 1962-03-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government's acquisition of the Matomic Building was not authorized by statute because it was outside the defined 'taking area' and lacked required congressional committee approval.
• United States v. Kennedy
  278 F.2d 121· 9th Cir.· 1960-04-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the 1951 appropriation act, when read in conjunction with the general condemnation statute, provided sufficient statutory authority for the Secretary of the Interior to condemn land within Mount McKinley National Park.
• United States v. Cooper
  277 F.2d 857· 5th Cir.· 1960-03-24 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the jury should not have considered the potential value of the land as a dam site because there was insufficient proof of a reasonable probability of such use in the reasonably near future.
• Romy v. Dade Cnty.
  114 So. 2d 8· Fla. 3d DCA· 1959-08-24 ·cited 26×
  In this eminent domain appeal, the court addressed two issues: whether month-to-month tenants could recover moving costs, and whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for attorney's fees. The court affirmed the denial of moving costs to non-owner tenants but reversed a
• Fla. State Tpk. Auth. v. Anhoco Corp.
  116 So. 2d 8· Fla.· 1959-06-10 ·cited 26×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved conflicting interpretations of a "Right-of-Way Deed" between the State Road Department/Dade County and theater operators regarding property access along State Road 826. The Court held that the deed created only an additional easement rather than
• United States v. 2
  259 F.2d 23· 5th Cir.· 1958-08-29 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the commissioners' findings were inadequate to support a judgment and that the case must be remanded for proper findings and a judgment based thereon.
• United States v. 63.04
  245 F.2d 140· 2d Cir.· 1957-06-03 ·cited 26×
  The court held that excluding evidence of a sale subsequent to the taking was an abuse of discretion, requiring a new trial on valuation and related severance damages. The court affirmed the finding that defendants did not hold title to the 'bulge' property.
• United States v. HAM
  187 F.2d 265· 8th Cir.· 1951-02-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred by unduly emphasizing 'use value' derived from income and excluding evidence of prior sales of the property and comparable properties, thereby denying the government a fair trial.
• United States v. Brooklyn Union GAS Co.
  168 F.2d 391· 2d Cir.· 1948-05-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the value of a public utility franchise taken in condemnation must be based on its worth as a business, considering its earning capacity, not on reproduction cost of physical facilities, and that evidence of actual post-taking events can inform prospective val
• ST. JOE Paper Co. v. United States
  155 F.2d 93· 5th Cir.· 1946-04-18 ·cited 26×