Cases: Eminent Domain – Page 4

In The News . . . . Mel Gibson Asked To Reimburse A Lot Of Oksana’s Fees And City Of Laguna Wood Hit With Substantial Fee/Expert Expense Award In Eminent Domain Case

January 29, 2011

Lawyers Requesting Over $1.5 Million More in Gibson Dissolution Proceeding. As reported in a January 27, 2011 post by the TMZ staff, Oksana Grigorieva’s lawyers are asking Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon–the same judge who heard the McCourt case–to order Mel Gibson to pay substantial attorney’s fees on top of $500,000 […]

Eminent Domain: Trial Court’s Denial Of Litigation Expenses To Winning Condemnees Reversed

Cases: Eminent Domain

October 30, 2010

Third District Finds Condemnor’s Final Settlement Offer Was Not In Good Faith, Not Condoning Unyielding Settlement Stances by Condemnors. We do not get that many eminent domain cases to report on. However, in our October 26, 2009 post, we did examine People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Acosta, 178 Cal.App.4th 762 (2009), where

Eminent Domain: Substantial Inverse Condemnation Fee Award Reversed Because Trial Court Did Not Explain Why It Chose Contingency Fee Amount Versus Hourly Fee Amount

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Eminent Domain

May 19, 2010

Lower Court Failed to Analyze the Factors in Yuki. After plaintiffs won a bench award of over $3.4 million in a nuisance/inverse condemnation action, the Second District, Division Two, in Karim v. City of Pomona, Case No. B210049 (May 18, 2010) (unpublished), reversed a favorable attorney’s fees award in favor of plaintiff homeowners

Eminent Domain: $288,537.75 Litigation Expense Award In Favor Of Condemnee Petroleum Franchisee Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Eminent Domain

October 26, 2009

Third District Finds No Federal Preemption and Sustains Conclusion that Litigation Expense Award Was Justifiable Based on Condemnor’s Final Offer. In our category “Eminent Domain,” we have reviewed cases discussing Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410, which allows a lower court to award condemnee its litigation expenses (including attorney’s fees) upon finding that condemnor’s

Eminent Domain: Prevailing Defendant Landowner Entitled To Routine Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Eminent Domain

May 15, 2009

Fourth District, Division 2 Acknowledges General Rule on Appeal. Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.720 sets out a general rule that a defendant landowner is entitled to his costs on appeal, a rule not restricted to the situation of whether or not he prevails. The purpose of the rule is to ensure that

Eminent Domain: Trial Court Did Not Abuse Discretion In Denying Litigation Expenses To Defendant Awarded $214,610 Verdict After Plaintiff’s Best $45,000 Pretrial Offer

Cases: Eminent Domain

May 9, 2009

First District, Division Two Stresses that Mathematical Relation Factor Is But One Factor For Consideration. In our December 23, 2008 post on the unpublished opinion of City of Visalia v. Harrah, we reviewed Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410(b) which allows the award of litigation expenses (including attorney’s fees and costs) to a winning

Inverse Condemnation: Winning Litigant Awarded Only $45,039.10 In Fees/Costs Out Of Requested $414,103.49

Cases: Eminent Domain

March 26, 2009

Third District Sustains Fee Award Where Litigant Won Only $1,034 For a Temporary Taking. Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 requires a mandatory award of reasonable costs, disbursements, and expenses (including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees) actually incurred to a prevailing party in a trial or an appellate inverse condemnation proceeding. Even under

Eminent Domain: Condemnees Not Entitled To Award Of Litigation Expenses Where Pretrial Compensation Demand Included Fees And Condemnor’s Final Offer Was Within 83% Of Jury’s Valuation Award

Cases: Eminent Domain

December 23, 2008

Condemnees' Final Demand (With Fees Included) Was 44% Above Jury Award. We do not see that many fee award discussions in the eminent domain area, but the next post will be of interest to eminent domain practitioners.