Articles Tagged with Inverse condemnation action

A lawyer holding her gravel with documents on her desks and beside her is someone holding lots of money.
Yes. But it is a complex affair. Eminent Domain proceedings take on a unique structure with expert testimony as the backbone for the determination of fair market value. Neither side of the litigation has the burden of proof on this issue of just compensation, and unlike the traditional civil court case, the Defendant presents their evidence first. (Code. Civ. Proc. § 1260.210.)

Additionally, judges will often place limits on what a homeowner may testify to and can screen the witness beforehand to ensure that they’ll be employing a valid methodology on the stand. Taken as a whole, the process can be quite daunting to the layperson. This post will therefore look at the common issues and questions which arise regarding testimony in eminent domain.

The Importance of Testimony in Eminent Domain Proceedings

Image of Gavel, and Constitution for blog image. ​​Can a property owner sue for inverse condemnation when the government refuses to permit development? Underwood Law Firm, P.C.In certain situations, it is possible for a property owner to sue the government for inverse condemnation when the government refuses to permit development and that refusal results in a “taking” under the United States constitution. 

If the city, state, or federal government refuses to permit development, it must take away all or substantially all the reasonable use of the property in order to form the legal basis for an inverse condemnation lawsuit. Then, the basis for inverse condemnation is formed on the basis of the government’s refusal to permit development, and this can be a powerful legal remedy for property owners.

The lack of reasonable use of the property is viewed with consideration of all of the impact on the personal landowner’s land in order to substantiate an inverse condemnation claim against the government. 

Contact Information