When a property owner suffers damage as a result of the actions of a public agency or public improvement, the owner typically pursues typical tort causes of action against the agency, along with a claim for inverse condemnation. While liability for the tort claims is decided by a jury, liability for inverse condemnation is determined by a judge. So what happens when both claims are pursued simultaneously -- should the judge rely on the jury’s determination of causation, or should the judge make his or her own findings?
Recently in Amedee Geothermal Venture I v. Lassen Municipal ...
Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain. We cover all aspects of eminent domain, including condemnation, inverse condemnation and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts and report on all major eminent domain conferences and seminars in the United States.
Stay Connected
RSS Feed
Categories
- Administration
- Appraisal
- California
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- CONGRESS
- Construction
- Court Decisions
- EPA
- Events
- Goodwill
- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
- Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings
- Lawsuit
- New Legislation
- Possession
- Projects
- Public Agency Law
- Publications
- Redevelopment
- Regulatory Reform and Proposed Rules
- Right to Take
- Right-of-Way
- Seminars
- Speaking Engagements and Presentations
- trial
- Valuation
- Videos
- Water