Skip to main content

June 7, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 158

National Law Review
  • Login
  • Mdn
  • FB
  • twt
  • link
  • home
  • rss
Advertisement
  • logo
  • Publish / Advertise with Us
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Join Our Team
    • Search
  • Trending Legal News
    • Most Recent
    • Legal News Podcast
    • What's Trending
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • NLR Blog
    • Search
  • About Us
    • About the NLR
    • NLR Team
    • Publishing Firms
    • E Newsbulletins
    • NLR Thought Leadership Awards
      • 2018
      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Policy
    • Search
  • Contact Us
    • Contact Us
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Publish
    • Advertise
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • Search
  • Quick Links
    • Legal News Podcast
    • Type of Law
      • Antitrust Law
      • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
      • Biotech, Food & Drug
      • Business of Law
      • Construction & Real Estate
      • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
      • Election & Legislative
      • Environmental & Energy
      • Family, Estates & Trusts
      • Financial, Securities & Banking
      • Global
      • Health Care Law
      • Immigration
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual Property Law
      • Labor & Employment
      • Litigation
      • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
      • Tax
      • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
    • E Newsbulletins
    • Legal Educational Events
    • Law Student Writing Contest
    • NLR Blog
    • Contact Us
    • Search
  • ENEWSBULLETINS

53

New Articles
Bottom Row Image
Advertisement

June 07, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Debt Ceiling Legislation Serves as a Vehicle for Substantive Changes... by: Ankur K. Tohan and Clifford C. Histed
  • Telecom Alert: Sixth Circuit Rejects USF Rehearing; $1.4 Million USF... by: Jaimy "Sindy" Alarcon and Jason P. Chun

June 06, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • New Washington Capital Gains Tax Impacts Estate Planning by: Catherine (Cat) N. L. Connell and Mark W. Roberts
  • New Washington Capital Gains Tax Impacts Estate Planning by: Catherine (Cat) N. L. Connell and Mark W. Roberts
  • OFCCP Announces Audits for Construction Contractors by: Guy Brenner and Olympia Karageorgiou
  • Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2023: Managing the Multigenerational... by: William E. Grob and Tiffany Cox Stacy
  • Visa Options for Foreign National Workers in the Life Sciences... by: Nicola Ai Ling Prall and Jessica K. Lang
  • Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp. 21-2296 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3,... by: Theo Mayer
  • HSE Proposes to Include Substances in UK REACH Substance Evaluation... by: Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  • What’s New in Wireless - June 2023 by: Angela Y. Kung and Christen B'anca Glenn
  • Colorado’s Job Application Fairness Act Restricts Employers’ Ability... by: Michael H. Bell and Rebecca M. Lindell
  • Florida Enacts Pole Attachment Regulations for Electric Cooperatives by: Dave Thomas and Abraham J. Shanedling
  • What Does The NLRB’s New Take On Non-Competes Mean For Employers? by: Grant T. Pecor and David J. Pryzbylski
  • What Does The NLRB’s New Take On Non-Competes Mean For Employers? by: Grant T. Pecor and David J. Pryzbylski
  • India’s New Labor Codes: Concept of Negotiating Union by: Nipasha Mahanta and Vikram Shroff
  • Eleventh Circuit Holds Adverse Employment Action Is Required in ADA... by: Gordon L. Blair
  • Common Contract Concerns for Community Associations by: Steven J. Adamczyk
  • The Most Effective Way to Improve Your Law Firm Chambers Rankings [... by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Russia-Related Export Controls Continue to Escalate by: Steven F. Hill and Michael E. Ruck
  • California Climate-Related Financial Risk Disclosure Bill Advances by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • FDA’s New Dietary Supplement Ingredient Directory by: Devaki Patel
  • The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Employee Selection Procedures:... by: Luke Bickel and Yasamin Parsafar
  • FHA Amends HECM Assignment Claim Type 22 Submission Requirements by: James W. Wright, Jr. and Britney M. Crawford
  • Court of Appeal Applies Caremark/Marchand To Directors of a... by: Keith Paul Bishop
  • YES, CREASY IS STILL DEAD: TCPA Decision Answers Question Everyone... by: Eric J. Troutman
  • Minnesota Adds Statewide Paid Sick and Safe Leave Starting on January... by: Brent D. Kettelkamp
  • NJ Mental Health Provider’s Response to Negative Online Reviews Costs... by: Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • Illinois Set to Join the Pay Transparency Club by: Brooke C. Bahlinger
  • Update: Form I-9 Requirement Flexibility Ending July 31, 2023 by: Shannon N. Parker and John F. Quill
  • 8 Ways to Create a More Client-Centric Mindset at Your Law Firm by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • FDA Clarifies Approach to Pediatric Drug Development by: Dominick DiSabatino and Audrey Crowell
  • HEALTHCARE PREVIEW FOR THE WEEK OF: JUNE 5, 2023 by: McDermott + Consulting
  • Pharmacy Benefit Managers are on the Federal Government’s Radar:... by: Bridgette A. Keller and Sophia Temis
  • Colorado Expands Employer Job Posting Obligations: Promotional... by: Michael H. Bell and Rebecca M. Lindell
  • FDA Issues Final Guidance for Inorganic Arsenic in Apple Juice by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Minnesota Joins the “Ban”-wagon, Barring Most Non-Competes with... by: Kevin M. Passerini
  • Trade Alert: US Action Against Certain Paper Shopping Bag Imports by: International Trade Practice at Squire Patton Boggs
  • FTC Hosts Workshop on Recyclable Claims by: Sheila A. Millar and Anushka N. Rahman
  • Telehealth Flexibilities Continue After End of COVID-19 Emergency by: Douglas A. Grimm and Gayland O. Hethcoat II
  • Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2023: Disciplining Employees in... by: Amanda T. Quan
  • Four More States File PFAS Pollution Lawsuits by: John Gardella
  • Connecticut Expands Workers’ Compensation Coverage for Post-Traumatic... by: Nicole S. Mulé and Chelsea R. Sousa
  • Environmental Justice Update: Differing State and Local Approaches to... by: J. Michael Showalter
  • Workplace Strategies Watercooler 2023: Neurodiversity at Work—... by: Phillip B. Russell
  • Will Mandatory Generative AI Use Certifications Become the Norm in... by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Holiday Road! DOL Weighs in on Tracking FMLA Time Against Holidays by: Anne R. Yuengert and J. William Manuel
  • Oregon Increases Penalties for Workplace Safety Violations by: John Surma and Kathryn P. Fletcher
  • ClientEarth Litigation in U.S. Over Deforestation in Brazil by: Jayshree Balakrishnan
  • Architects Should Not Make Initial Decisions on Construction Disputes by: William S. Wilson
  • FTC Issues Proposed Order Against Home Security Camera Company Ring by: Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • ECB Reports Progress, Identifies Gaps in Banks’ Climate-Related... by: Sukhvir Basran
  • U.S. Supreme Court Issues Landmark Clean Water Act Decision,... by: Tad J. Macfarlan and Endre M. Szalay
  • Supreme Court Allows Employer to Sue Union. Is that a big deal? by: Labor and Employment Practice
  • Brussels Regulatory Brief: May 2023 by: Giovanni Campi and Philip Torbøl
  • U.S. Supreme Court to Review “Trump Too Small” Trademark Refusal by: Susan M. Kayser and Eric W. Lee
  • European Parliament Adopts Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence... by: Duncan Grieve
  • Home Depot Files Opening Brief in California Supreme Court Case Set... by: Tyler J. Johnson and Richard J. Simmons

June 05, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Investor Coalitions Urge Consumer Goods Companies to Take Action to... by: Jason M. Halper
  • FDA Webinar Reiterates a New Regulatory Pathway Created by Federal... by: Food and Drug Law at Keller and Heckman
  • Sixth Circuit Rules that Brandished Firearm Could Be 'Threat of... by: Sonal Hope Mithani and Sarah C. Reasoner
  • Proposed Consent Decree – EPA & Ethylene Oxide Emissions by: David A. Goldman
  • FTC Explores Environmental Claims and Pending Civil Penalty... by: Richard B. Newman
  • Six Common Data Quality Management Issues and How to Solve Them by: Christina R. Fritsch JD
  • Supreme Court Decision Cements Employers’ Ability to Sue for Strike... by: Steven J. Porzio and Alexander J. Blutman
  • US Federal Agencies Commit to Regulatory Enforcement of AI Systems by: Alya Sulaiman and Jason D. Krieser
  • Certain Employers in Ontario Are Now Required to Have Naloxone Kits... by: Mitch Frazer and Patrick Denroche
  • Airline Sued Over Claims That it is “First Carbon-Neutral Airline” by: Sara Bussiere
  • Wetlands No More? U.S. Supreme Court Limits Federal Regulation of... by: Sarah A. Slack and Dorothy E. Watson
  • Challenges in Energy Project Development [Podcast] by: Joel Meister and David Markey
  • GeTtin' SALTy Episode 6 | Maryland Digital Advertising Tax—An in... by: Nikki E. Dobay and DeAndré R. Morrow

June 04, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
  • Supreme Court FCA Scienter Ruling Revives Fraud Lawsuits Against... by: D. Jacques Smith and Randall A. Brater
  • Highlights for Research Institutions and Sponsors in FDA's... by: Michael H. Hinckle and Rebecca M. Schaefer
  • Texas Consumer Privacy Law Nears Governor’s Signature by: Amy C. Pimentel
  • Fraud or Art? Supreme Court Provides Copyright Clarity in Warhol Case by: David H. Siegel
  • En Banc Ninth Circuit Upholds Delaware-Forum Bylaw That Prevents... by: Jonathan E Richman
  • How to Develop a Client-Centric Approach to Business Development at... by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Supreme Court Holds NLRA Does Not Preempt Claims for Intentional... by: Eric C. Stuart and Daniel A. Adlong
  • SEC Issues Largest Whistleblower Bounty Award Ever To One Individual by: Steven J Pearlman and Joshua M. Newville
  • LinkedIn Company Page Master Class - Summer 2023 by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Drop in Chinese Utility Model Grants Accelerates in April 2023 in... by: Aaron Wininger
  • The Supreme Court Clarifies the Meaning of “Knowingly” Under the... by: Patrick M. Hagan and Jennifer Orr Mitchell
  • French Insider Episode 22: French Investments in the U.S. Wine... by: Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton LLP
  • 17 Actionable Ways to Build Your Brand and Business by: Stefanie M. Marrone
  • Going ‘green’—what Does that Mean? FTC Proposes Revisions to Green... by: Lesli C. Esposito and Marisa E. Poncia
  • Unanimous Supreme Court Endorses Subjective Belief Standard for False... by: Conor O. Duffy and Seth B. Orkand
  • Compliance Update — Insights and Highlights May 2023 by: Memrie M. Fortenberry
  • Trending in Telehealth: May 23 – 30, 2023 by: Amanda Enyeart and Taylor Edward Hood
  • Minnesota Legalizes Recreational Marijuana, Protects Off-Duty Use by: Catherine A. Cano and Elaine Luthens
  • Washington’s My Health, My Data Act: What Types Of Data Are Regulated... by: David A. Zetoony
  • FDA Cracking Down on Unapproved HCT/Ps with Fourth Untitled Letter of... by: Dominick DiSabatino and Cortney Inman
  • Supreme Court Requires Traceability for Securities Act Claims Arising... by: Jonathan E Richman
  • How Small Actions Can Yield Big Results in Your Marketing and... by: Stefanie M. Marrone

Article By

Timothy P. Duggan

Stark & Stark
New Jersey Law Blog
Stark & Stark Law Firm in New Jersey

Related Practices & Jurisdictions


  • Real Estate
  • Constitutional Law
  • All Federal
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Tweet
Advertisement

Eminent Domain and Condemnation Frequently Asked Questions

Friday, February 10, 2017

What is eminent domain and who uses it?

Eminent Domain is the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. Government agencies that use eminent domain include state government agencies like the Transportation department and local agencies tied to the municipalities. “The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.” This means if the government wants your land for public use it must buy it from you at fair market rates. Usually it tries to buy your property before going through the condemnation process.

What does “public use” mean? Can eminent domain be used to give my property to a private for-profit company?

Eminent domain was traditionally used to construct new roads, public buildings, parks, and water/sewer fixtures to improve community services to the general public, i.e., “public use.” As cities matured, the public use definition was broadened to allow cities to rectify “blight” through redevelopment of decaying neighborhoods and revitalization projects for commercial areas. In some states, public use also includes condemnation for “economic development.” This use is the most controversial because it generally involves the transfer of land to private interests. As part of redevelopment plans, Government agencies can use the power of eminent domain to take private property and turn around and transfer the property to a private company. Also, certain private companies have been granted the right to acquire property by eminent domain, including railroads, energy companies and natural resource companies.

How does the eminent domain process work?

The government process for using the power of eminent domain varies from state to state. In general it follows a set of steps similar to these:

  1. The government determines there is a need to use eminent domain for a public use purpose, and obtains the necessary approvals from the governing body (usually by the adoption of a resolution or ordinance).

  2. The government negotiates with the property owner to buy the property.

  3. If an agreement can’t be reached with the owner and the property is necessary for the public use project, then the government exercises its power of eminent domain to condemn the property.

  4. If the compensation amount is still in dispute it may go to a panel of condemnation commissioners or court or both.

Can I stop the government from taking my property?

The eminent domain process can only be stopped in a limited number of ways:

  1. Public use. The government must support its claim that the “taking” is for a valid public purpose.

  2. The government must also support its claim that the taking of your property is a necessity. If it is taking too much land, it will fail the necessity test—those parcels may then be removed from the condemnation. This also applies to blighted property. If you can prove that your property does not meet a test for blight, you may also be relieved of condemnation.

  3. The government must strictly follow all of the statutory requirements, including negotiating in good faith, accurately describing what property is being taken, and adhering to other procedural protections designed to protect property owners.

Inability to agree on compensation will not change the eminent domain rulings. Your property will still be condemned and you will be compensated at the fair market value determined by the courts or condemnation commissions.

Will I be penalized if I choose not to negotiate and force the government to go to court?

No. As a property owner you have the right to question the government’s purpose and force condemnation.

What if they take the part of the land I needed or wanted most and it ruins my remaining property?

Compensation in partial or full takings can be awarded for certain inconveniences and in certain circumstances. For example, compensation may be suitable if: 1) access is completely blocked or unreasonably limited; 2) use of your property is less efficient then before the taking, e.g., on a farm; and possibly for 3) loss of visibility or view but only in the case of a taking. You are unlikely to get compensated just because an adjacent property or public use building blocks your view.

Do I need a lawyer? Can’t I just negotiate with the government on my own?

You can negotiate on your own, but, depending on your knowledge of eminent domain, you might be better off having an attorney—and getting that attorney at the beginning this complicated process. The government is just a buyer in a real estate transaction–it is trying to get the most value at the lowest price and it has all of the power in the negotiation. Anything you say or information you reveal at the beginning of the process may be used to decrease the value of your property at the end. If you are not aware of all of the compensation options and all of your rights, you could miss out on getting the most money for the property you never intended to sell, or even preventing the condemnation. The government is not obligated to look out for the property owner’s best interest; it only has to make sure you are “fairly” compensated. Keep in mind that fair compensation could be at the bottom of market rates. A lawyer that is experienced in eminent domain can help you get the best price and ensure you are compensated to the full extent of the law and your rights.

COPYRIGHT © 2023, STARK & STARKNational Law Review, Volume VII, Number 41
  • Printer-friendly
  • Email this Article
  • REPRINTS & PERMISSIONS
Advertisement

Latest Legal News & Analysis

Debt Ceiling Legislation Serves as a Vehicle for Substantive Changes to NEPA
K&L Gates
Telecom Alert: Sixth Circuit Rejects USF Rehearing; $1.4 Million USF Fine...
Keller and Heckman LLP
New Washington Capital Gains Tax Impacts Estate Planning
K&L Gates
New Washington Capital Gains Tax Impacts Estate Planning
K&L Gates
OFCCP Announces Audits for Construction Contractors
Proskauer Rose LLP
Advertisement

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS

What Does The NLRB’s New Take On Non-Competes Mean For Employers?
By
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
What Does The NLRB’s New Take On Non-Competes Mean For Employers?
By
Barnes & Thornburg LLP
India’s New Labor Codes: Concept of Negotiating Union
By
Nishith Desai Associates
Eleventh Circuit Holds Adverse Employment Action Is Required in ADA Failure-to-...
By
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
Common Contract Concerns for Community Associations
By
Varnum LLP
The Most Effective Way to Improve Your Law Firm Chambers Rankings [VIDEO]
By
Stefanie Marrone Consulting

Upcoming Legal Education Events

Ward and Smith's 2023 Health Care Breakfast and Learns at New Bern Golf & Country Club!
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
PCI DSS 4.0: Third-party Service Providers And Risk Management
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
Medicare Advantage Marketing Today: Recent Changes to CMS Rule
Wednesday, June 7, 2023
New E-Verify Law: Guidelines for Florida Employers with Over 25 Employees to Ensure Compliance by July 1
Thursday, June 8, 2023
Advertisement

About this Author

Timothy P. Duggan, Stark Law, Creditor's Rights Lawyer, Bankruptcy Attorney
Timothy P. Duggan
Shareholder

Timothy P. Duggan is Chair of Stark & Stark’s Bankruptcy & Creditors' Rights Group.  Mr. Duggan represents national and community banks, agricultural lenders, franchisors, equipment leasing companies, shopping centers and trade creditors in commercial litigation and bankruptcy cases.  Mr. Duggan has substantial experience in creditor-rights litigation, including foreclosures, replevin matters and negotiating corporate loan restructuring. Mr. Duggan’s litigation experience covers most aspects of bankruptcy litigation, with a focus on defending preference and fraudulent transfer...

[email protected]
609-895-7353
www.stark-stark.com
National Law Review
  • Antitrust Law
  • Bankruptcy & Restructuring
  • Biotech, Food, & Drug
  • Business of Law
  • Election & Legislative
  • Construction & Real Estate
  • Environmental & Energy
  • Family, Estates & Trusts
  • Financial, Securities & Banking
  • Global
  • Health Care Law
  • Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Insurance
  • Labor & Employment
  • Litigation
  • Cybersecurity Media & FCC
  • Public Services, Infrastructure, Transportation
  • Tax
  • White Collar Crime & Consumer Rights
  • Coronavirus News
  • Law Student Writing Competition
  • Sign Up For NLR Bulletins
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • FAQs

 

As a woman owned company, The National Law Review is a certified member of the Women's Business Enterprise National Council

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 3 Grant Square #141 Hinsdale, IL 60521  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317.  If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.

Copyright ©2023 National Law Forum, LLC