Court Okays Compensation Based On Comparison

August 2009
Land Use Law Report;2009, Vol. 37 Issue 8, p60
The article discusses a court case wherein the a land owner was granted just compensation for the condemnation of his property, but was denied a reverter clause. Shawn Ashby Postlethwait was granted 1,500 U.S. dollars per acre for his 2.5 acre land in Collier Florida, as just compensation for the government using it as part of the Big Cypress National Preserve. He was denied a reverter clause since there is no evidence to his speculation that the government may convert the land for commercial use.


Related Articles

  • Right of reasonable access and loss of view not compensable in eminent domain case.  // Appraisal Journal;Fall2006, Vol. 74 Issue 4, p316 

    The article presents information on the court case Utah Department of Transportation vs. Ivers, in which the Court of Appeals of Utah ruled that damages were not entitled for property owners in a condemnation case for the loss of access, or loss of view from or visibility of the remaining...

  • Don't Book that U-Haul Yet.  // njbiz;10/4/2004, Vol. 17 Issue 40, p3 

    Reports on the agreement of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case out of New London, Connecticut, where local officials use the power of eminent domain to condemn private homes near Pfizer's research center. Plans of officials for the land claimed; Towns in New Jersey that are experiencing the...

  • Takings Law Today: A Primer for the Perplexed. Meltz, Robert // Ecology Law Quarterly;2007, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p307 

    The article outlines takings law as defined by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Takings law is derived from eminent domain and requires the government to compensate property owners for interference regarding use of private property. Because takings suits filed by property owners are...

  • THE NEGLECTED POLITICAL ECONOMY OF EMINENT DOMAIN. Garnett, Nicole Stelle // Michigan Law Review;Oct2006, Vol. 105 Issue 1, p101 

    The article discusses an assumption about eminent domain that owners are systematically undercompensated because they receive only fair market value for their property. It examines three ways that takers or nonjudicial actors in the eminent domain process minimize undercompensation such as they...

  • No damages awarded for diminished market perception in condemnation case.  // Appraisal Journal;Summer2005, Vol. 73 Issue 3, p225 

    The article informs that no damages were awarded for diminished market perception in a condemnation case. Landowner in the condemnation case was not entitled to damages for the remaining property's "diminished market perception," according to the Supreme Court of Texas. John L. Santikos owns a...

  • KELO COMPENSATION: THE FUTURE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAKINGS. Householder, Benjamin A. // Chicago-Kent Law Review;2007, Vol. 82 Issue 2, p1029 

    The article discusses the Supreme Court ruling on the "Kelo v. City of New London" case that grants municipalities the power to take from one private owner for the economic benefit of both private developers and communities at large in the U.S. Also cited are the issues' implications for the...

  • Just Compensation: Back to the Basics. Featherstone, Michael // Appraisal Journal;Apr84, Vol. 52 Issue 2, p304 

    Provides some basic information about eminent domain and condemnation to help professions engaged in exercising the power of eminent domain in the United States become less complacent and take an honest look at what the process has become and reflect on what its should be. Difference in the...

  • Notes from the English: Compensation In Town and Country Planning. Mandelker, Daniel R. // California Law Review;Oct61, Vol. 49 Issue 4, p699 

    Discusses the statutory compensation scheme for town and country planning in England. Features of the positive technique of planning; Cost accounting in land use; Problems in the payment of compensation for planning restrictions.

  • THE TAKING OF LAND: WHEN SHOULD COMPENSATION BE PAID? Blume, Lawrence; Rubinfeld, Daniel L.; Shapiro, Perry // Quarterly Journal of Economics;Feb84, Vol. 99 Issue 1, p71 

    The analysis focuses on the question of whether the payment of compensation for land taken by eminent domain is efficient. When the taking decision is independent of land use, zero compensation is efficient, but full compensation is not. When the project decision is no longer independent of land...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics