• About
    • Justin Hodge
    • Luke Ellis
  • Contact Us
  • Eminent Domain FAQs
  • Resources
    • Fair Market Value Considerations
    • Highest and Best Use
    • Highway Expansions
    • Pipelines
    • Power Lines
    • Water Rights
    • What is Eminent Domain?
  • Sitemap
  • Thank You

Texas Condemnation

~ Texas Eminent Domain Explained

Texas Condemnation

Category Archives: JMEH Law News

College Station, Texas – Property Owner and Landowner Rights Conference

07 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in College Station, JMEH Law News, Landowner Rights, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas Eminent Domain Attorney, Texas Eminent Domain Lawyer

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Austin condemnation, Austin Eminent Domain Attorney, Austin eminent domain lawyer, College Station Eminent Domain, Houston condemnation, Houston Condemnation Lawyer, Houston Eminent Domain Attorney, Houston eminent domain lawyer, landowner rights, property rights, Texas Condemnation, Texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain, Texas eminent domain lawyer, Texas Lawyer

College Station has been a hub for growth in recent years, and this growth has triggered the development of several large-scale infrastructure projects that will require the use of eminent-domain to reach fruition. In an effort to help educate local landowners of their rights in these proceedings, Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge hosted the Property Owner and Land Owner Rights Conference on May 9 in College Station.

Aggie projects

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet

Tiffany Lashmet

Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist who focuses on Agricultural Law at Texas A&M Agrilife Extension, spoke to those in attendance about easement negotiations and rights. Lashmet writes and maintains the Texas Agriculture Law blog for A&M, a site that has been regarded as one of the top legal blogs in the nation.

“Condemnation proceedings have very different procedures than other civil cases,” she wrote in one blog. “It is important for landowners to understand the condemnation process in case they ever find themselves faced with a condemnation suit.”

JMEH partners Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge also presented at the conference and provided a summary of Texas Senate and House bills pertaining to eminent domain. Most of the bills discussed did not make their way into legislation at the close of Texas’ 84th Legislative Session. The two also went over what the landowners affected by nearby projects could expect in an eminent-domain lawsuit.

“There were dozens of concerned landowners in attendance who are deeply impacted by these projects,” Hodge said.

The conference also included discussions about land valuation, typical valuation disputes in condemnation cases, and information about what to look for when obtaining an appraiser.

If you have any questions regarding this seminar or any other projects, please feel free to contact Luke Ellis (lellis@jmehlaw.com) or Justin Hodge (jhodge@jmehlaw.com).

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Texas Landowner Wins $445,000 Judgment Against Power Company for Lost Property Value

24 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in JMEH Law News, Politics, Power Lines, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ Leave a comment

“Case may signal future litigation over power line easements.”

WICHITA FALLS, Texas – A North Texas landowner has won a $445,365 judgment against an electric power delivery company after his land lost value when an easement was taken for a high-voltage electric transmission line.

The judgment signals a win for other Texas landowners whose properties are being targeted as power line companies flood the Public Utility Commission (PUC) with applications seeking approval for similar transmission lines.

The recent dispute represents a fundamental debate: How much does a high-voltage power line easement, with its tall towers and unsightly appearance, reduce the value of property it crosses? A Wichita County jury agreed that an entire parcel was worth less, not just the land taken for the easement.

“This judgment sends a clear message. Texas landowners should understand that they have a constitutional right to collect fair damages when power lines lower the value of their land. Landowners only get one opportunity to recover, but the easements remain forever,” says Austin-based eminent domain attorney Luke Ellis of Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, lead trial counsel for the property owner.

The dispute began in 2011 when Oncor Electric Delivery Co. LLC sued Edward Clack to gain 33.6 acres of easement on his Burkburnett property for a 345,000-volt power line, the highest-voltage lines built in Texas. The Oncor easement, 160 feet by 1.7 miles, bisected Mr. Clack’s property. Oncor initially offered him less than $55,000 before raising the offer to nearly $140,000.

After a three-day trial in Wichita County Court at Law No. 1, jurors awarded Mr. Clack $393,165, the full amount he requested. On Feb. 12, Judge Gary Butler entered a judgment of $445,365, which includes interest and court costs. Oncor may appeal.

The case is Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC v. Edward Clack, No. C-330-E.

Over the past year, the PUC has received new power line applications affecting Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, South Texas, San Antonio and the Texas Hill Country.

Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP, a trial and appellate boutique with offices in Austin and Houston, focuses on representing landowners in eminent domain proceedings, commercial litigation, probate and appeals. Visit the firm online at http://jmehlaw.com/the-firm/.

For information on the power line judgment, please contact Kit Frieden at 800-559-4534 or kit@androvett.com.”

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Denbury Tug-of-War Continues

23 Friday Jan 2015

Posted by texascondemnation in Chambers County, Denbury, Fort Bend County, Harris County, Jefferson County, JMEH Law News, Pipelines, Power Lines, Property Rights, texas condemnation, texas condemnation lawyer, texas eminent domain

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

172nd District Court, common-carrier status, Condemnation, denbury green, Denbury Green Pipeline, Eminent Domain, Justin Hodge, Ninth District Court of Appeals, RRC, T-4 Permit, Texas Railroad Commission, Texas Rice Partners

Denbury Green Pipeline

The 120-mile “Green” Pipeline, completed in 2010, runs from Donaldsonville, Louisiana to Houston, Texas.

Despite the drop in oil prices, the tug-of-war between landowners and the Denbury Green pipeline company continues to play out in court in the landmark case that defined common-carrier status in Texas.

Texas Rice Partners, Ltd. v. Denbury Green Pipeline, involving Denbury’s right to invoke eminent domain to obtain the properties of Texas Rice Land Partners, Ltd., a consortium of rice farmers, was ruled in the pipeline company’s favor by both the 172nd District Court and the Texas Ninth District Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas, in 2011. These courts claimed that Denbury was indeed a common carrier, and, therefore, could use eminent domain to obtain land to build its pipeline.

The Texas Supreme Court, however, reversed those rulings, arguing that Denbury’s classification as a common carrier rested too heavily on a pipeline company simply checking a box on a one-page document for the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC) and that the RRC’s findings could not reliably and conclusively determine a company’s power to use eminent domain.

The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court late 2011, and the district court again ruled in favor of Denbury’s common carrier status in 2014. The case continued again to the appellate court in Beaumont, which heard oral arguments for the case last month. Denbury built the pipeline during this legal back-and-forth, but the landowners hope the appellate court will send the case back to the Supreme Court as the case has yet to be heard by a jury and that Denbury’s intent to serve as a common carrier at the time of condemnation has not been established (Read more here).

While the court of appeals has not yet ruled on this matter, the RRC announced new regulations for granting a T-4 permit – required for property condemnation by pipeline companies – effective March 2015 in an effort to better regulate this process. The new regulations will ask for more substantial information and supporting documentation from companies applying for the permit and enforce a new timeline for the application process (Read more about the new regulations here).

As laws and precedent for private companies to invoke eminent domain continue to change, landowners should try to stay up-to-date to better protect their property rights. In fact, we all should. The laws are changing quickly, and the tug-of-war between pipeline companies and landowners will impact us all.

Justin Hodge is a law partner in Houston, Texas. He focuses on eminent domain, condemnation and landowner defense. For more information, please see http://www.jmehlaw.com.  

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

TexasEminentDomainLawyer.com

02 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by texascondemnation in JMEH Law News, Pipelines, Power Lines, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Billboard Valuation, Texas condemnation lawyer, Texas eminent domain case law, Texas Eminent Domain cases, Texas eminent domain law, Texas eminent domain lawyer, TexasEminentDomainLawyer.com

We are excited to announce the launch of our new blog, TexasEminentDomainLawyer.com!  This blog will provide case law updates and summaries on recent eminent-domain decisions in Texas.

TexasEminentDomainLawyer.com

We invite you to enjoy our recent posts summarizing pipeline cases.  We will be adding summaries of new billboard valuation cases soon.  TexasCondemnation.com will continue to provide breaking news and commentary on Condemnation and eminent domain issues.

 

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Tesoro Logistics Responsible for Recent Oil Spill, Landowner to Receive Compensation for Damages

24 Thursday Oct 2013

Posted by texascondemnation in JMEH Law News, Pipelines, Politics, Property Rights, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Condemnation, Eminent Domain, Keystone, Keystone Pipeline XL, landowner rights, Landowners, North Dakota, oil, Oil Spill, pipeline, property rights, Tesoro, Tesoro Corp, Tesoro Logistics, Texas

A Texas-based oil company discovered a leak in one of its pipelines in North Dakota after a local farmer reported it to ND officials on Sept. 29, but the oil company did not spill this news until 11 days after discovering the pipeline rupture that released an estimated more-than 20,000 barrels of crude oil.

State officials initially reported a 750-barrel spill that the company in question, Tesoro Logistics LP, did not publicize because of the smaller initial estimate and what it considered to be a lack of environmental damage.

Kris Roberts, an environmental geologist with the North Dakota Health Department, was quoted in a New York Times article stating that Tesoro officials reported the spill to the state within 24 hours of first discovery and that the state does not have to release information of all oil spills publicly.

While Tesoro responded to the spill promptly, the cleanup process could take a couple of years and will cost an estimated $4 million. The local wheat farmer, Steve Jensen, who notified the State Department of Health of the oil spill after seeing crude oil coating the wheels of his combine, will also receive compensation for damages to his field that could keep his wheat crops out for a couple of years.  He and Tesoro are negotiating a settlement in regards to this matter.

The spill seems to have originated from a hole — about a quarter-inch in diameter — in a segment of the 20-year-old pipeline originally built by BP in 1993 but purchased by Tesoro in 2001, according to Reuters. The pipeline runs 35 miles within the state.

Many people have criticized Tesoro for not detecting the spill of about 20,600 gallons over 7.3 acres, or the equivalent of seven football fields according to the NYT, and the spill comes during an oil boom for the state following its 1951 discovery of oil. This spill surely will not help mitigate those concerned about the much larger Keystone XL pipeline expansion that will cross international borders and include 1,700 new miles of pipeline if approved. The Keystone Pipeline did not see its day in Congress during the debt-ceiling debates, and a decision on its expansion will likely not come until 2014.

TransCanada, the company heading the Keystone project, Tesoro Corp. and other pipeline owners cannot afford to slack on detecting leaks under the current political climate. These companies must employ vigilance and preemptive measures to mitigate environmental concerns and to protect landowners like Jensen whose income depends on the land surrounding oil pipelines.

Coauthored by Justin Hodge and Ayla Syed.

Note: Tesoro Logistics LP is a partnership formed by Tesoro Corp. 

To read more about the spill, please click here.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Importance of Property Rights and a Partial History of How We Got Them

24 Monday Sep 2012

Posted by texascondemnation in JMEH Law News, Property Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

2012, common law, Condemnation, contract rights, Eminent Domain, Gulf Coast Project, Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge, just compensation, Kelo, Keystone pipeline, Latin America, Magna Carta, oil and gas, Pipelines, property rights, Sir Edward Coke, Texas, TransCanada

Eminent domain has gotten a lot of press recently. A major catalyst was the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed a city to take private property from individual landowners so that it could be redeveloped for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and thereby increase tax revenues. The Court announced that taking land to allow private companies to redevelop it counted as a “public use” under the Constitution’s Takings Clause.

Public outcry was loud and sustained. Many states, including Texas, passed anti-Kelo legislation to prevent the use of eminent domain for “economic development.” Ironically, the land where Susette Kelo’s little pink house once stood was never redeveloped. Pfizer decided not to go forward with its $350-million research center, nixing the city’s plans for retail shops, condos, and hotels surrounding the facility.

More recently, TransCanada received approval for its Gulf Coast Project, a 485-mile pipeline running from Oklahoma to the Texas coast. TransCanada’s ultimate goal is to build a nearly 2700-mile, $2.3-billion pipeline connecting Canada’s tar sands to Texas’s refineries. The project poses serious environmental concerns, including damage to aquifers and deteriorating air quality from refining tar sands, which critics claim are dirtier than other crudes to refine. Landowners in Texas and elsewhere are up in arms about having a foreign company run toxic tar over their property. The pipeline’s supporters respond that the project promotes U.S. energy security, reasoning it’s better to consume crude oil from North American producers than higher-priced oil from countries that do not share American values.

In takings cases, the public and the media usually fixate on environmental issues and on whether the government or private taker has a “right to take” the land. No doubt, those issues are very important.

But another issue is critical: “just compensation” for the landowner whose property is taken. Today most people ignore this issue. Most of us probably assume that what counts as “just compensation” isn’t controversial, leaving it to our elected Texas Supreme Court to define “just compensation” and “market value” in ways that would surprise most Texans.

Rather than criticize how the supreme court applies the Takings Clause, today I’d like to share a couple of stories about the importance of property rights—and the luck and bravery it took to develop the process for landowners to get any compensation at all.

A Personal Story—and the Importance of Property Rights

Property rights are a big deal in my home. My wife is originally from Latin America. She has wonderful memories of her early childhood: picking mangos right off the tree as an after-school snack, talking with friends as everyone chewed on sugar cane, going to festivals in her small village, and playing with her nine brothers and sisters. (As for having 10 kids, her mom explains, with a wink, that no one in the town had TV during the 60s and 70s.) My wife’s family wasn’t among the super rich, but they had a productive farm and ranch lands that her father had worked his whole life to earn.

But in the 1980s, a civil war ravaged the country, and communist guerrillas confiscated the lands of her family, dramatically changing the trajectory of their lives. My wife and several members of her family members emigrated to the United States, becoming permanent residents and eventually American citizens. They were never able to return to their lands. Even after the war ended, government officials were too corrupt or too weak to help my father-in-law recover his property. Sadly judges and other officials in her native country, as in many places, continue to help shysters cheat people out of their land and inheritance in exchange for bribes and other favors. Her country remains poor, and gangs routinely kidnap people and steal their property, often with police cooperation.

These experiences help explain my wife’s immense love for the United States. She constantly reminds our boys and me of how lucky we are to live in a country with so many educational and cultural opportunities—and a wonderful tradition of respecting property rights and the rule of law. She encouraged me to attend law school and to study property rights in other countries.

My wife’s story shows the importance of property rights in the real world. When governments are too weak or corrupt to protect their citizens’ property, or when the state itself can take private property without paying for it, what incentives do people have to take care of their lands or work to create wealth? People need real guarantees that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor with their family and friends. Otherwise, it’s the law of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak. As Hobbes put it, such a life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” And as William Bernstein notes in The Birth of Plenty, the right to property is the right that guarantees all others: “Individuals without property rights are susceptible to starvation, and it is much easier to bend the fearful and hungry to the will of the state.” If the state can arbitrarily threaten a person’s property, “that power will inevitably be used to intimidate those with divergent political and religious views.”

The Rule of Law: An Accident and a Hero

The Big Bang in property rights—including a landowner’s right to “just compensation” for takings—was something of an accident. Following a failed campaign to regain Normandy, King John of England stole property and raised rents on his subjects—but did so without following the proper proceedings, or what we now call “due process.” The barons rebelled, occupied London, and forced John in 1215 to sign the Magna Carta. For the first time, everyone was subject to the law, even the king—who could no longer deprive any free person of life, liberty, or property without due process. And when His Majesty took private property, he would have to pay for it.

Yet strong property rights did not flower overnight. It took brave judges willing to stand up to royalty. Sir Edward Coke was a pioneer in promoting an independent judiciary. In 1606, James I faced accusations that he’d broken promises to transfer property to a bishop. The king asked the judges to delay the verdict until he could personally discuss the case with them, which seems outrageous today but was common practice at the time. Coke refused and convinced his fellow judges to deny the king’s request. The king was not amused, so he summoned the judges to his chambers and demanded they reverse their ruling. While Coke’s fellow judges cowered, Coke calmly told the king that he was bound to honor his duty as a judge, and he refused to cave in to the king’s request. Coke was later removed from office and suffered the indignity of seeing many of his opinions erased from the law books, but his immense popularity as a defender of the common man saved his life. As Bernstein explains, “Now, for the first time in European history, a judge had faced down royal power.” Coke’s Institutes of the Laws of England, which articulated what is known as “the common law,” was especially influential in the American colonies.

The common-law tradition—which views the protection of property rights as the duty of an independent judiciary—was the foundation for the great wealth and freedoms enjoyed in many countries around the world. The common law focused on following legal precedents and maintaining its separation from the other branches of government. These features were critical to developing meaningful property rights. Property owners could point to the rights and guarantees applied in previous cases—and, just as important, the separation of powers meant that a person seeking to take away another’s property rights would have to convince not only the king or a powerful legislator but also the judiciary. In contrast, it was much easier to take away property rights in civil-law countries, where the decisions of a single branch (the legislature) were supreme. It is no surprise, then, that England and America were the first countries to create great wealth—the kind of material wealth never before seen in the history of the world. When government must pay “just” and “adequate” compensation for the property it takes, and when courts enforce property and contract rights, people are more willing to take care of the property they already own and to make investments to increase their holdings.

– by Christopher Johns, partner at Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge, LLP (cjohns@jmehlaw.com)

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge Litigation Boutique Opening in Austin, Houston

07 Friday Sep 2012

Posted by texascondemnation in JMEH Law News

≈ Leave a comment

Luke and I are proud to announce the opening of our new firm, Johns Marrs Ellis & Hodge. The firm is a litigation boutique with offices now open in both Houston and Austin. We focus on trials and appeals in eminent domain and condemnation cases, probate and fiduciary disputes, as well as business and intellectual property lawsuits. We were fortunate enough to enjoy the company of friends and family at our Houston reception last night and look forward to another great reception in Austin next Thursday, September 13th at Haddington’s from 5:00 PM – 8:00 PM.

To learn more about the firm, visit our website at www.jmehlaw.com.

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
  • Twitter

Like this:

Like Loading...

Stay up to date with Justin and Luke

texascondemnation

texascondemnation

Luke Ellis and Justin Hodge are partners with Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP. Justin heads the firm's eminent domain practice in the Houston office. Luke heads the firm's eminent domain practice in the Austin office. Luke Ellis is widely recognized as one of Texas’s top young lawyers—and one of the top lawyers of any age practicing in the area of eminent domain. Mr. Ellis has broad experience and has enjoyed success in many types of civil litigation. Justin Hodge is a trial lawyer who represents Texas landowners in condemnation, eminent-domain, and real-estate lawsuits. He represents landowners in condemnation proceedings, not the governmental authorities or private companies taking property. Mr. Hodge has handled complex condemnation and eminent-domain cases throughout the State of Texas. If you have questions about any of the issues raised in this blog, we invite you to discuss them with us at jhodge@mehlaw.com or lellis@mehlaw.com.

Personal Links

  • Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP

View Full Profile →

RSS TexasCondemnation

  • Jacob Merkord on Fox 7 Austin News Regarding Matterhorn Pipeline in Williamson County, Texas August 3, 2022
    Jacob Merkord, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on Fox 7 Austin news regarding the upcoming Matterhorn Pipeline …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Luke Ellis Interviewed on KXAN-NBC News Austin Regarding Matterhorn Pipeline Project July 13, 2022
    Luke Ellis, Marrs Ellis & Hodge LLP partner, was interviewed on KXAN-NBC news in Austin regarding the upcoming Matterhorn pipeline …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Watch Justin Hodge on Fox26 News – Texas Supreme Court Approves Eminent Domain for High Speed Train Between Houston and Dallas June 30, 2022
    Justin Hodge was interviewed on Fox26 news about the Texas Supreme Court’s recent approval of eminent domain for the high …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • ALI CLE Eminent Domain Conference – Scottsdale, Arizona January 28, 2022
    Justin Hodge with Marrs Ellis and Hodge presented at the 2022 ALI CLE Eminent Domain Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. You …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Brazoria County Bar Association – Eminent Domain Presentation January 20, 2022
    Justin Hodge, Kyle Baum, and Kyle Hlavinka presented on eminent domain at the January 2022 Brazoria County Bar Association luncheon. …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Oral Arguments Held in Tropical Storm Harvey Downstream Flooding Cases January 13, 2022
    On January 12, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard Milton v. United States (The Tropical Storm …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Law360 – High Speed Rail Showdown In Texas January 4, 2022
    Emma Whitford, with Law360, wrote a terrific article entitled “3 Real Estate Cases to Watch in 2022.” As part of …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • Groups File Complaint With FHWA Against TxDOT on I-45 Project in Houston, Texas. December 18, 2021
    Alliance Houston, Stop TxDOT I-45, LINK Houston, Texas Appleseed, and Texas Housers filed a complaint on Thursday, December 16, 2021 …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • High Speed Train from San Antonio to Monterrey – TxDOT and Mexico Study Concept December 11, 2021
    TxDOT and Mexico both recently conducted studies connecting San Antonio, Texas to Monterrey, Mexico. Another high-speed train project is also …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation
  • TxDOT I-45 Project is Allowed to Proceed December 3, 2021
    Despite months of delay, the Federal Highway Administration announced that TxDOT is allowed to proceed with portions of the I-45 …Continue reading →
    texascondemnation

Follow Our Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Twitter Updates

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

Twitter Updates

  • With the #Keystone decision looming, will the President propose a quid pro quo? wp.me/p2D4PK-3i via @JustinAHodge #Obama #Pipelines 9 years ago
  • City of #Austin may pay Whittington $14.1 million for downtown block wp.me/p2D4PK-3f via @JustinAHodge #TexasSupremeCourt 9 years ago
  • Court rules #EPA can withdraw mining permits wp.me/s2D4PK-196 via @JustinAHodge #Coal #Pollution 9 years ago
Follow @TXCondemnation

Twitter Updates

  • With the #Keystone decision looming, will the President propose a quid pro quo? wp.me/p2D4PK-3i via @JustinAHodge #Obama #Pipelines 9 years ago
  • City of #Austin may pay Whittington $14.1 million for downtown block wp.me/p2D4PK-3f via @JustinAHodge #TexasSupremeCourt 9 years ago
  • Court rules #EPA can withdraw mining permits wp.me/s2D4PK-196 via @JustinAHodge #Coal #Pollution 9 years ago
Follow @JMEHLaw

TexasCondemnation

  • RSS - Posts
  • RSS - Comments

Pages

  • About
    • Justin Hodge
    • Luke Ellis
  • Contact Us
  • Eminent Domain FAQs
  • Resources
    • Fair Market Value Considerations
    • Highest and Best Use
    • Highway Expansions
    • Pipelines
    • Power Lines
    • Water Rights
    • What is Eminent Domain?
  • Sitemap
  • Thank You

Powered by WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: