OCA Blog

May 6th, 2019 — By  Dwight H. Merriam, CRE — In Articles

OCA Member Dwight Merriam Weighs In On Controversial Topic Before Connecticut Supreme Court

By Dwight H. Merriam, CRE

Over the last 40 years, more than 8 million babies have been born through the miracle of in vitro fertilization, creating new love and new families.But when couples split, what happens to the embryos? Is this a property rights issue or someting else? It’s not an easy question to answer. Connecticut would benefit from a law that providesguidance. In the meantime, the Connecticut Supreme Court has that question before it. See OCA Member Dwight Merriam’s recent Article on this controversial topic in the Hartford Courant.

Read More

January 17th, 2019 — In Uncategorized

Listen to OCA Member Andrew Prince Brigham’s NPR Interview on Eminent Domain and Trump’s Border Wall

  https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/01/16/trump-eminent-domain-border-wall

Read More

March 5th, 2018 — In Uncategorized

Manatt Triumps in Eminent Domain Lawsuit Against the United States

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, litigators, led by partner and OCA Member Edward G. Burg at trial, secured a victory for Hahm International Inc. and Levand Steel & Supply Corp. on Feb. 15 in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California against the United States. The jury awarded $30.3 million in compensation to the owners of 1,000 acres of land in the Mojave Desert, which was taken by eminent domain for expansion of the U.S. Marine Corps training base at Twentynine Palms.The property, owned by principals of Hahm International Inc. of Apple Valley and Levand Steel & Supply Corp. of Los Angeles, contained a permitted iron ore mine that was slated to supply iron ore to the cement industry for the next 45 years. The United States told the jury that the property was worth $5.6 million, while the owners claimed the property was worth $38.6 million.Burg, representing the property owners, hailed the verdict. “We always believed that the federal government vastly undervalued the property by not recognizing its uniqueness and its importance to future infrastructure and construction in California,” he said. The property owners currently own one of two active iron ore mines in California supplying iron to the cement industry. The property in the lawsuit, a permitted mine known as Morris Mine, was to become the next source of iron ore for the industry. Located in Johnson Valley, in the desert east of Apple Valley, it is the only iron ore mine permitted in the state in the […]

Read More

February 28th, 2018 — In Articles

Five New Orleans stores to receive $2.1M from Major Drainage Project

Owners’ Counsel of America Member Randall Smith represented several landowners who filed damage claims arising from a sewage and sanitation project in New Orleans. After several years of litigation, the New Orleans Sewerage & Water Board has agreed to pay five Uptown stores a total of $2.125 million for physical damages and the loss of business caused by major drainage work done on Jefferson Avenue in recent years. The settlement, finalized Monday, comes as the S&WB is preparing for trial in a case brought by 275 plaintiffs who allege their homes also were damaged by work on the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, usually referred to as SELA. Langenstein’s, Discount Corner, Prytania Liquor Store, Prytania Mail Service and British Antiques are among the first plaintiffs to settle claims against the S&WB for damage from the work that turned Jefferson, Napoleon and Louisiana avenues into construction zones for years The five businesses suffered structural damage, including cracks in their buildings and problems with their foundations, and saw their business drop off because the construction limited access to their locations, said Randy Smith, an attorney representing the stores. “At the end of the day, the S&WB and its lawyers stepped up and did what was right,” Smith said.

Read More

November 23rd, 2016 — In Articles

Owners’ Counsel of America Files Brief in Inverse Condemnation Case before U.S. Supreme Court

The Owners’ Counsel of America (OCA) has joined together with other property rights advocates to file an amici curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court in an inverse condemnation case concerning the rails-to-trails conversion of an elevated rail line in New York to a public parkway.  

Read More

October 5th, 2016 — In Articles

Battle on the Beach: Owners’ Counsel of America Files Amicus Brief in Important Property Rights Case

Recently, the Owners’ Counsel of America filed an amicus brief in a property rights case currently pending in the North Carolina Supreme Court. The case, Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle, No. COA15-169 (N.C. App. Nov. 17, 2015), concerns the ownership and right to use the “dry sand” beach.  OCA joined with Hawaii Law Professor David Callies as amici on the brief.

Read More

July 18th, 2016 — In Articles

While One State Seeks to Limit Powers, Another Seeks to Reinvigorate Use of Eminent Domain

Since the infamous 2005 Supreme Court Kelo decision, many have watched as state and federal legislators across the country consider a variety of laws relating to eminent domain and property rights. Some of these laws have specific purposes – such as the APPROVAL Act that Arkansas’s congressional delegation proposed in 2015 – while others are intended to more broadly restrict or expand the government’s power to condemn private land. Two recently-proposed bills on opposite sides of the country fall into this latter category, albeit with diametrically opposite aims.

Read More

July 14th, 2016 — In Articles

North Carolina Supreme Court Holds Map Act Unconstitutional

In an important victory for property owners, the North Carolina Supreme Court recently held that key provisions of the state’s Map Act are unconstitutional. As a result of the Court’s ruling June 10, 2016, affected property owners will be entitled to just compensation for the state’s regulatory taking of their properties. Additionally, landowners throughout the state may seek just compensation in the event that the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) prevents them from improving their land in order to reserve property for future roadway development projects.

Read More

June 30th, 2016 — In Articles

Dictionary of Key Terms

Below are general definitions of key terms that are often used in eminent domain and other taking cases. Please note that the precise definition of any of the following terms may differ depending upon the state or jurisdiction applicable to the relevant matter. Additional Information on Eminent domain Our website is full of resources for individuals and businesses threatened with the loss of their private property rights. For more information on the law of eminent domain and inverse condemnation, you can read: Calculating Just Compensation Eminent Domain vs. Inverse Condemnation: What’s the Difference? Property Owners’ Frequently Asked Questions about Eminent Domain Understanding Your Rights in Inverse Condemnation and Regulatory Takings Cases When Can Property Owners Challenge Eminent Domain? Can I Afford to Hire an Eminent Domain Attorney? Speak With an Eminent Domain Lawyer at Owners’ Counsel of America Owners’ Counsel of America (OCA) is a network of leading eminent domain lawyers throughout the United States. If the government is attempting to take your property, we encourage you to contact an OCA lawyer in your state for a free consultation. Locate your OCA lawyer online or call us at (877) 367-6963 to connect with an eminent domain lawyer today.

Read More

June 7th, 2016 — In Articles

California Court Rules that Obstructing a Private View Does Not Amount to Inverse Condemnation

A recent case out of the California Court of Appeal illustrates two important aspects of the law of inverse condemnation in The Golden State. Inverse condemnation involves the government appropriating private property rights without adhering to the Constitutional and legal requirements for the exercise of eminent domain (including payment of just compensation). You can read more about the differences between eminent domain (also referred to as “condemnation”) and inverse condemnation here.

Read More