1 Case Law Update Inverse Condemnation When OAC regulators are forced to buy a sign! Andy M. Frohardt Assistant Attorney General Colorado Office of Attorney General
2 First... Important Caveats! Case law can vary from state to state. Some states have developed case law on inverse condemnation, others do not. Statutes can vary from state to state. Highly case-specific rely upon cases at your own risk! Very advanced stuff!!!
3 By Johann Zoffany - The Royal Collection, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid= King George III King of UK from 1760 to 1820
4 Condemnation - Basics 5 th Amendment (the Takings Clause ) [N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Just Compensation = Fair Market Value (plus damages to remaining property) Your state constitutions have comparable provisions.
5 Condemnation - Basics Condemnation = The taking of private property for a public use. If there is a taking, government must pay just compensation. (i.e., fair market value, plus damages) Note: Sometimes called eminent domain.
6 Condemnation - Basics Who has the Power? Government entities and certain private entities have the authority. Why does it exists? Needed to complete public projects. Obvious Example Acquisition of nonconforming billboards!
7 Condemnation - Basics Process: 1. Immediate Possession Phase Examines whether government has lawful right to condemn. Sets deposit amount for government to take possession. 2. Pre-Valuation Trial Phase Issues of law are decided. Appraisals are commissioned. 3. Valuation Trial Phase A judge, commission or jury determines the market value of the property plus damages based on expert witness testimony of appraisers. 4. Apportionment Phase Landowner and other interest holders battle over how much of the award they each get.
8 Condemnation - Basics Valuation of Signs A [VERY BRIEF] Overview Landowner / Lessor Sign owner / Lessee Leasehold Interest
9 The Police Power. Police Power = The authority of the government to regulate, restrict, control, or prohibit the conduct of any business that affects the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the public. Examples: Police officers and laws. DOT Access restrictions / highway designations. And, of course, OUTDOOR ADVERTISING COMPLIANCE! No just compensation required.
10 The Police Power. Due Process. Notice. Right to a Hearing. Right to Appeal. And regulations must be reasonable!!!
11 Inverse Condemnation - Basics Inverse Condemnation = Government taking without following the eminent domain process and without paying just compensation. Property owner initiates by filing suit against the government entity. If allowed to proceed Just Compensation Required (with money paid via either settlement or a valuation trial)
12 Inverse Condemnation - Basics Classic Examples: Government builds a dam. Dam causes water to flood properties of private citizens. Government acts outside scope of an easement (i.e., trespass). Government does not negotiate an acquisition with the correct person.
13 Inverse Condemnation - Basics Property owner has the burden of proof. Key issue Is it a taking? If it is a taking, then 5 th Amendment is triggered and government must pay just compensation. In all inverse cases, government typically pays all costs and fees of the landowner.
14 Recap What is it? Police Power Condemnation Inverse Condemnation Power to regulate/control. Power to acquire property for public use. Who initiate? Gov t. Gov t. Citizen. Just Compensation? No. Yes. Yes! Burden of Proof? Depends. Gov t. Citizen. Gov t Pays Attorney Fees? Gov t Pays Expert Witness Costs? Not usually. Sometimes (varies among states). Power of citizens to make Gov t buy property! Yes! Not usually. Usually. Yes!
15 Inverse Condemnation in the Context of OA Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) If a regulation goes too far, then it is a regulatory taking that requires just compensation.
16 Inverse Condemnation in the Context of OA Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S (1992) - Regulation "goes too far" and results in a taking at least in the extraordinary circumstance when no productive or economically beneficial use of land is permitted. But also, two situations where there is a taking Physical invasion of property not using Police Power. 2. Regulation that denies all economically viable use.
17 Inverse Condemnation in the Context of OA Why are inverse claims so scary? Just Compensation $ Interest $ Attorney Fees $ Expert Witness Fees $ $$$$
18 Inverse Condemnation in the Context of OA Common (?) examples in OA: 1. State DOT tries to exercise its Police Power to remove a billboard when the real purpose is to avoid paying just compensation via eminent domain. 2. HBA / state laws allow relocation of a sign, but third party government regulations do not. 3. State DOT/agency passes regulations that are far more restrictive / not standard compared to accepted federal or state law.
19 Inverse condemnation experience?
20 Illustrative Cases
21 Case Examples Inverse Allowed. Vivid, Inv. V. Fiedler, 512 N.W.2d 771 (Wis. 1994) Facts: Two nonconforming signs (erected ). 1988, WisDOT started widening highway I-90, near Janesville, Wisc. WisDOT negotiated acquisition of land under the signs.
22 Case Examples Inverse Allowed. Vivid, Inv. V. Fiedler, 512 N.W.2d 771 (Wis. 1994) Facts: Orders the sign owner, Vivid, to remove the signs. When Vivid asks for just compensation, WisDOT refuses, reasoning the signs were personal property for which relocation expenses were allowed but not just compensation. Vivid filed inverse claim, alleging the removal order was a taking which requires just compensation.
23 Case Examples Inverse Allowed. Vivid, Inv. V. Fiedler, 512 N.W.2d 771 (Wis. 1994) Results: WisDOT required to pay just compensation. Court reasons the HBA requires payment of just compensation for the removal of nonconforming signs along the interstate and primary systems. Effective control includes the payment of just compensation for nonconforming signs.
24 Case Examples Inverse Allowed. Vivid, Inv. V. Fiedler, 512 N.W.2d 771 (Wis. 1994) Lessons for Regulators: Be very wary about not paying just compensation for nonconforming signs. Be very wary of raising the personal property argument. BUT SEE: City of Wichita v. Denton, 294 P.3d 207 (Kan. 2013) (holding a 14-by-48-foot, 34 foot high, 22,000 pound, digital billboard supported by 96 tons of concrete was personal property not requiring compensation upon the City s order of removal at the termination of the lease).
25 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Wis. DOT, 762 N.W.2d 745 (Wis. App. 2008). Facts: 2006 Wisconsin DOT (WisDOT) planned a highway project off Highway 39. Lamar owned a sign off Highway 39. Sign was nonconforming because existed prior to enactment date of Wisconsin s sign laws. Lamar illegally rebuilt sign. WisDOT sent removal demand, requesting removal of the sign and advising of right to request hearing within 60-days.
26 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Wis. DOT, 762 N.W.2d 745 (Wis. App. 2008). Facts (Cont.): Lamar requested hearing. WisDOT scheduled the hearing. WisDOT then removed the sign, before the hearing. With sign removed, Lamar wanted administrative case dismissed and wanted just compensation. DOT objected, saying the sign is illegal, if we win in the administrative case, then no just compensation is due!
27 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Wis. DOT, 762 N.W.2d 745 (Wis. App. 2008). Facts (Cont.): Administrative hearing officer dismissed the case pursuant to Lamar s request no basis for not dismissing when the hearing requestor wants it dismissed. Lamar files inverse condemnation action seeking just compensation. In the action, WisDOT argues Lamar had its opportunity to contest the legality of the sign, it didn t, so it has waived this argument and no just compensation is required.
28 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Wis. DOT, 762 N.W.2d 745 (Wis. App. 2008). Results: Wisconsin Court of appeal agreed with WisDOT. Lamar had an obligation to contest the legality through the administrative proceeding after WisDOT issued its letter. Administrative hearing is exclusive mechanism for determining legality of the sign, and by not exhausting its remedies, Lamar waived its right to contend the sign was legal. No compensation required!
29 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Lamar Cent. Outdoor, LLC v. Wis. DOT, 762 N.W.2d 745 (Wis. App. 2008). Lessons for Regulators: If a billboard owner attempts to claim inverse condemnation after administrative process declares it illegal or after they have waived their right to contest the legality, probably not a valid inverse claim. Issue your notices/letters/orders to remove signs prior to removal or initiation of a condemnation action.
30 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tenn. DOT, 2008 WL (Tenn. App. 2008) Facts: Nonconforming billboard (constructed in 1950 s) TennDOT fails to send renewal notice; permit is never renewed TennDOT needs to expand State Route 86. Tells billboard owner needs to remove billboard for project, and offers owner relocation expenses. Billboard owner accepts, relocates the billboard; TennDOT pays relocation fees.
31 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tenn. DOT, 2008 WL (Tenn. App. 2008) Facts: New owner purchases billboard: Universal. Universal tries to update permits. Is told by TennDOT OA needs to pay back-fees for all of the years permit renewal fees were not paid. Universal agrees. Pays back fees. But when Universal reapplies, TennDOT OA does due diligence and discovers the signs were removed.
32 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tenn. DOT, 2008 WL (Tenn. App. 2008) Facts: TennDOT denies permit! Administrative process unfolds, and all courts agree TennDOT s denial was lawful. On appeal, Universal raises inverse claim.
33 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tenn. DOT, 2008 WL (Tenn. App. 2008) Results: Inverse claim dismissed. Universal cannot bring its inverse claim in the administrative appeal. Plus, one year statute of limitations bars claim. Inverse claim arose either in 1996 when sign was ordered to be removed, or in 1998 when TDOT refused to issue permit.
34 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Universal Outdoor, Inc. v. Tenn. DOT, 2008 WL (Tenn. App. 2008) Lessons for Regulators: Don t let billboard owners bring inverse claims into administrative proceedings; they are two separate, unique judicial processes. Check your state s statute of limitations for inverse claims. See if the government action that allegedly requires compensation occurred before the window allowed for suit closed.
35 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Clear Channel Outdoor v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 150 P.3d 649 (Wash. App. 2007) Facts: Seattle Monorail Auth. building monorail. Clear Channel owned and maintained billboard for 27 years on property lease expired, leaving lease terminable by either party upon 30 days written notice. Monorail purchased the underlying land.
36 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Clear Channel Outdoor v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 150 P.3d 649 (Wash. App. 2007) Facts: Monorail starts issuing notices/demands to vacate the land. Clear Channel brought inverse claim.
37 Case Examples Inverse Not Allowed Clear Channel Outdoor v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 150 P.3d 649 (Wash. App. 2007) Results: Inverse claim dismissed! Court ruled Clear Channel s month-to-month lease conferred was not a protectable property interest. The billboard is a removable fixture / personal property, and the lease contained no renewal obligation for Monorail.
38 Case Examples One More Quick Case! Where city enacted ordinance that required removal of all non-conforming signs at the expiration of the 5 ½ year period, without payment of just compensation inverse claim allowed because regulatory taking. National Advertising Co. v. City of Raleigh, 947 F.2d 1158 (4 th Cir. 1991).
39 Closing Tips & Recap Assess an Inverse Allegation Early -- Before it Blows Up! Ask your attorney to provide a legal opinion about the risk of the owner succeeding on an inverse claim. Assess the whether your regulatory action deprives the owner of all economically viable uses. HBA requires payment of just compensation for the removal of nonconforming billboards. Judges don t like when enforcement actions just so happens to precede highway projects! If you are physically entering property to remove a billboard, the character of the government action looks more intrusive, so you better hope your Police Power is lawful.
40 Closing Tips & Recap Don t Let Billboard Owners Combine Inverse Cases with Administrative Cases. Inverse claims have their own proceeding. Considering issuing violation letters before highway projects send out condemnation notices so that your DOT can prevent bogus just compensation arguments. Ask if they Have Case Law to Support their Inverse Claim. Case law is all over the map, and his highly dependent upon the facts of specific cases. Try to get a read on what research they have done and, if they have done research, how good it is.
41 Closing Tips & Recap Examine the Lease. What rights does the billboard company truly have? How much are those rights truly worth? Read the lease between the landowner and the billboard owner/lessee to ascertain rights and expectations of landowners and billboard owners. Term of the lease? 99 year lease or 1 year lease? Termination Clause? Condemnation Clause? Settlement / Litigation Clause? $1,000 / mo. of revenue or $120,000 / mo. of revenue?
42 Closing Tips & Recap Consider Raising Personal Property Argument. Raising this argument may not save your case though it might! but it can give you leverage in negotiations. (Might check your state s case law to ensure can be raised in good faith.) See if Your State s Statute of Limitations Could Bar the Claim. Whatever your state s statute of limitations is (1 year? 2 years? 3 years?), it may be applicable if the inverse condemnation claim could/should have been raised long ago.
43 Closing Tips & Recap Get Your Agency s ROW Professionals Involved. Your agency s ROW professionals are condemnation experts. Get their input shortly after an inverse threat arises. Assess whether Your Rule or Law Goes too far. Is the rule or law you are trying to enforce also a component of the HBA or federal regulation? If so, probably not a regulatory taking.
44 Closing Tips & Recap Don t Panic. The inverse condemnation claimant has the burden of proof. They must show the court why there was a taking that entitled them to just compensation.
Preparing for an Outdoor Advertising Process Review by FHWA What Does FHWA Expect from Me? Dawn Horan, FHWA Office of Real Estate Services WHAT TO EXPECT TODAY What are our goals? Who s Responsible? Define
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 03/20/2014 TIME: 10:25:00 AM JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Raymond Cadei CLERK: D. Ahee REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON LEE HAYNES, an adult individual, ) NO. 66542-1-I ) Appellant, ) DIVISION ONE ) v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) SNOHOMISH COUNTY, and ) SNOHOMISH COUNTY PUBLIC
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA, v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-4106
Kinnon W. Williams firstname.lastname@example.org direct: 425.450.4225 fax: 425-635-7720 Bio With a focus on eminent domain and municipal law, Kinnon is regarded as one of the leading eminent domain trial attorneys
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE April 13, 2005 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL. v. WANDA DEAN WALLACE, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 50200336 Ross Hicks,
Louisiana Law Review Volume 30 Number 2 The Work of the Louisiana Appellate Courts for the 1968-1969 Term: A Symposium February 1970 Public Law: Expropriation Melvin G. Dakin Repository Citation Melvin
University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 10-27-2009 HYATT CORPORATION d/b/a
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 13, 2011 JOHN GRIFF LUCAS v. CITY OF WAVERLY, TENNESSEE, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Humphreys County No. 9961 George
Eminent Domain: A Reference Guide Joseph Rivera Murray Dahl Kuechenmeister & Renaud LLP 710 Kipling Street, Suite 300 Lakewood, Colorado 80215 (303) 493-6678 email@example.com Joseph Rivera is special
60 National Conference of State Legislatures Public-Private Partnerships for Transportation: A Toolkit for Legislators Ap p e n d i x C. Stat e Legislation Co n c e r n i n g PPPs f o r Tr a n s p o rtat
LEGAL RESEARCH, ANALYSIS, AND ADVOCACY FOR ATTORNEYS Founded in 1969, NLRG is the nation s oldest and largest provider of legal research services to attorneys. We have served more than 50,000 attorneys
Zoning Law Update: Non-Conforming Properties in Tennessee Presented at the 63 rd Annual Conference of the Tennessee Municipal League By George A. Dean Parker, Lawrence, Cantrell & Dean 200 Fourth Avenue
Delaware Law Update: Don t Ask, Don t Waive Standstills Subcommittee on Acquisitions of Public Companies February 1, 2013 Jennifer Fonner DiNucci Cooley LLP Patricia O. Vella Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
The following Wheeling Creek Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention District Compact, which has been negotiated by representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of West Virginia,
Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 30 2003 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002) Mary Ernesti Follow this and
Page 942 872 F.2d 942 (10th Cir. 1989) Robert R. DOELLE, as substituted (Formerly, Wayne Wonderland Development Association, Inc.), Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH,
Discovery and Rules of Evidence in Eminent Domain Presented by F. Adam Cherry, III, Randolph, Boyd, Cherry and Vaughan 14 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 and Mark A. Short Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. One
RW-745 (2-17) www.dot.state.pa.us APPLICATION FOR OFF-PREMISE OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DEVICE PERMIT (Instructions for completion of this application and related information is available as Form RW-745I) The
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 101,335 BEN J. and LAVELLE FRICK, Appellants, v. CITY OF SALINA, KANSAS, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Inverse condemnation
CHAPTER 27 EMINENT DOMAIN Section IN GENERAL 11-27-1. Who may exercise right of eminent domain. 11-27-3. Court of eminent domain. 11-27-5. Complaint to condemn ; parties; preference. 11-27-7. Filing complaint;
Overview Of Local Government Surface Water Rights In North Carolina Municipal Attorneys Conference August 2009 Presented by Glenn Dunn POYNER SPRUILL publishes this educational material to provide general
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION CHASE BARFIELD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 11-cv-04321-NKL SHO-ME POWER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, et al., Defendants.
Wisconsin Lakes Partnership Convention April 25, 2014 Stevens Point, WI John Keckhaver Wisconsin Lakes Lobbyist 2013-2014 Legislative Session Status Wisconsin Lakes Legislative Agenda Session Review What
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re: Condemnation by the : Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Department of Transportation, of : Right-of-Way for State Route 1032, : Section B02, in the Borough
Chapter 40A. Eminent Domain. Article 1. General. 40A-1. Exclusive provisions. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any local act, it is the intent of the General Assembly that, effective August 15, 2006,
Empty Property Procedure Note No. Action Target 1 Identify empty properties. The existing database lists all empty properties that we already know of. Information has come from Council tax records, Environmental
SECOND DIVISION BARNES, P. J., DOYLE, P. J. and MILLER, J. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DURHAM COUNTY ROBERT D. WARREN, and LYN HITTLE v. ELI RESEARCH, INC. Plaintiff, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 07 CVS
DEC 7-200~ ~ No. 09-197 IN THE ~u~reme ~em t of t~e ~niteb ~tate~ KIMCO OF EVANSVILLE, INC. N/K/A/KCH ACQUISITION, INC., THE FRANKLIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND VANDERBURGH COUNTY, INDIANA, Petitioners,
Circuit Court for Baltimore County Case No. 03-C-13-002705 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1778 September Term, 2016 SMG HOLDINGS I, LLC, ET AL. v. ARENA VENTURES, LLC Kehoe,
CITY OF LAKEWOOD CHRISTMAS TREE LICENSE Lakewood Civic Center No application shall be accepted prior to the first of November or after the 15 th of December. DOCUMENTS REQUIRED WITH APPLICATION: A letter,
CALIFORNIA CODES GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54950-54963 54950. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in
Supreme Court of Florida QUINCE, J. No. SC15-1260 HARDEE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. FINR II, INC., Respondent. [May 25, 2017] This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second
LIABILITY UNDER THE TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT By: Richard Evans Staff Attorney Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool The King Can Do No Wrong 1 Sovereign Immunity Under common law, state and political
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PA IN RE: : NO. 99-01,299 : CONDEMNATION BY THE BOROUGH : EMINENT DOMAIN OF MUNCY OF CERTAIN REAL : PROCEEDINGS PROPERTY LOCATED IN MUNCY : CREEK TOWNSHIP,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY, LLC., A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND SYLVIA W. JOHNSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE
2001 Case Law Update prepared by Amy Brigham Boulris, Esq. presented by Andrew H. Schuster, Esq. Brigham Moore Miami The following outline summarizes Florida eminent domain and related cases of note rendered
Chart 12.7: State Appellate Court (Cross-reference ALWD Rule 12.6(b)(2)) Alabama Divided Court of Civil Appeals Court of Criminal Appeals Alaska Not applicable Not applicable Arizona Divided** Court of
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE March 8, 2011 Session READY MIX, USA, LLC., v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Jefferson County No. 99-113 Hon. Jon Kerry
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,334 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS JOSHUA P. OLGA, Appellant, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee. MEMORANDUM OPINION 2017. Affirmed. Appeal from Sedgwick
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1853 Lower Tribunal No. 13-12833 Jose Vila, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Submitted via www.regulations.gov May 15, 2017 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Regulatory Policy and Management Office of Policy 1200 Pennsylvania
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 4-1-1989 Nollon v. California Coastal
PEACE OFFICER PRIVILEGES IN CIVIL LITIGATION: An Introduction to the Pitchess Procedure Presented by Tony M. Sain, Esq. firstname.lastname@example.org MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP Five Questions Five
CITY OF FLORENCE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 11, 2009 1. Chairwoman Tammy Stone called the regular meeting of the Florence City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll call - Tammy Stone - Present Larry
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF WAKE 14 CVS 11860 ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE, LLC ) Movant, ) ) ORDER ON MOTION FOR v. ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Montana Law Review Volume 55 Issue 2 Summer 1994 Article 10 July 1994 Montana Supreme Court Unnecessarily Misconstrues Takings Law John L. Horwich Professor of Law, University of Montana Hertha L. Lund
1429 OIL AND GAS Faced with uncertain supply and escalating prices from foreign oil producers, public demand has shifted to domestic oil suppliers thereby causing the value of domestic oil and gas leases
MISSOURI REVISED STATUTES RELATING TO BILLBOARDS 226.500. Purpose of Law. The general assembly finds and declares that outdoor advertising is a legitimate commercial use of private property adjacent to
CONFLICT ASSESSMENT: FEDERAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CONTROL PROGRAM ~ A Report to ~ The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution ~ Prepared by ~ The Osprey Group P.O. Box 8 Boulder, Colorado 80306
CASENOTES In re Puget Sound Power and Light Company: Eminent Domain by Corporations Reevaluated In the case of In re Puget Sound Power and Light Co.,' the Washington Court of Appeals rejected the arbitrary
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA SESSION 2017 SENATE BILL 410 RATIFIED BILL AN ACT TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM FOR THE LEASING OF PUBLIC BOTTOM AND SUPERJACENT WATER COLUMN FOR MARINE AQUACULTURE, TO REQUIRE
Case 308-cv-04745-JAP -DEA Document 91 Filed 08/16/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID 2404 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MOHAMMED BASHIR and VICTORIA DANTCHENKO, Plaintiffs,
Selecting Eminent Domain Experts Anthony F. Della Pelle, a partner with McKirdy & Riskin in Morristown, New Jersey, limits his practice to condemnation, eminent domain, redevelopment, and real estate tax
Printed on: 10/20/01 Page # 1 94 Nev. 275, 275 (1978) Lied v. County of Clark ERNST F. LIED, Appellant, v. COUNTY OF CLARK, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; MGM GRAND HOTEL, INC., a Corporation;
7-1-3: McCALL PLANNING AND ZONING, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING ORDINANCES: A. Pursuant to Idaho Code sections 67-6526(a)(1) and 67-2328, McCall city code title 3 and title 9, its zoning ordinance
WHEN IS IT TOO PERSONAL?: PUBLIC RECORDSACT UPDATEON PERSONNEL RECORDS 35th Annual Civil Service Conference Wenatchee, Washington September 13, 2016 Adrian Urquhart Winder 206.447.8972 email@example.com
Berkeley Law Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2005 Kelo, Lingle, and San Remo Hotel: Takings Law Now Belongs to the States William A. Fletcher Berkeley Law Follow this and additional
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs April 27, 2010 JIMMY GRAY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 09-343 Amy Reedy,
BILL LOCKYER Attorney General State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET, SUITE 125 P.O. BOX 944255 SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550 INTRODUCTION Set forth below is the complete text of the Ralph
: The Regulatory Takings Test of Smart Growth Policies Practice Guide #2 Fall 2002 Southeast Regional Environmental Finance Center EPA Region 4 University of Louisville Sarah L. Coffin, Serena M. Williams
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE January 31, 2011 Session CHARLES PESCE v. EAST TENNESSEE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County No. 25444 J. Michael
17.07 Administration, Enforcement and Appeals 17.07.010. Administrative duties of city council. The City council: A. enacts and amends land use ordinances, temporary land use regulations, zoning districts
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. Rose WILCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF AKRON; Donald Plusquellic, Mayor; and Time Warner Cable Northeast, Defendants-Appellees. No. 06-3848. Argued:
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë JOSEPH P. MURR, et al., v. Petitioners, STATE OF WISCONSIN and ST. CROIX COUNTY, Ë Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals
Case 1:15-cv-00501-JAP-CG Document 110 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 11 Ethel B. Branch, Attorney General The Navajo Nation Paul Spruhan, Assistant Attorney General NAVAJO NATION DEPT. OF JUSTICE Post Office
Surface Water Drainage Dispute Raises Numerous Issues 2321 N. Loop Drive, Ste 200 Ames, Iowa 50010 www.calt.iastate.edu July 17, 2009 - by Roger McEowen Overview Surface water drainage disputes can arise
Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR ADAAA Case Repository Labor and Employment Law Program 11-15-2012 Gina N. Del Tinto, Plaintiff, v. Clubcom, LLC, Defendant. Judge Arthur J. Schwab Follow
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 134 FERC 62,197 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Clean River Power 15, LLC Project No. 13874-000 ORDER ISSUING PRELIMINARY PERMIT AND GRANTING PRIORITY TO FILE LICENSE APPLICATION
Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 55 Filed 02/02/16 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION TERRYL T. MATT, CV 15-28-GF-BMM Plaintiff, vs. ORDER UNITED
State P3 Legislation Matrix 1 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas 2 Article 2: State Department of Ala. Code 23-1-40 Article 3: Public Roads, Bridges, and Ferries Ala. Code 23-1-80 to 23-1-95 Toll Road, Bridge
Case 4:12-cv-00546-O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION WILLIAMS-PYRO, INC., v. Plaintiff, WARREN
4.28 PRIMARY STRUCTURE ADDRESS ORDINANCE THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. PURPOSE This ordinance provides a system by which all primary structures
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MIRIAM HAYENGA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. PAUL GILBERT and JANE DOE GILBERT, husband and wife; L. RICHARD WILLIAMS and JANE DOE WILLIAMS, husband and wife; BEUS
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE FEDERAL RULE 801(D)(1)(A): THE COMPROMISE Stephen A. Saltzburg* INTRODUCTION Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) is a compromise. The Supreme Court
1 1 SEATTLE CITIZENS AGAINST THE TUNNEL and ELIZABETH CAMPBELL, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Plaintiffs/Petitioners, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; PAULA HAMMOND, IN
Case :-cv-0-rjb Document Filed 0// Page of THE HONORABLE ROBERT J. BRYAN 0 STILLAGUAMISH TRIBE OF INDIANS, a federally recognized Indian tribe, v. Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT
44 The Sixth Circuit s Lingering Mystery of Fifth Amendment Practical Undercompensation By Neal Nusholtz The eminent domain power of government to take property for public use dates back at least to Rome
Article 19B. Plant Protection and Conservation Act. 106-202.12. Definitions. As used in this Article, unless the context requires otherwise: (1) "Board" means the North Carolina Plant Conservation Board
ABRAHAM HAGOS, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit December 9, 2013 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROGER WERHOLTZ,
19 TIPS to help you win your Unemployment Compensation Review Commission hearing The unemployment appeal process is tailored for claimants and employers who do not have an attorney. At the hearing, the
Santa Clara Law Review Volume 34 Number 3 Article 7 1-1-1994 Book Review [Grand Theft and the Petit Larcency: Property Rights in America] Santa Clara Law Review Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview
ORDINANCE NO. 175891 A proposed ordinance amending Section 12.20.3 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to modify procedures within the Historic Preservation Overlay Zones. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
City Attorneys Department League of California Cities Annual Conference October 1997 Daniel J. Curtin, Jr. Attorney at Law PHILOSOPHY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS: SETTING THE STAGE I. OVERVIEW A. Police Power.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.