Eminent Domain Cases

Federal Cases:

Berman v. Parker (US Supreme Court 1954) — The 5th Amendment's "Public Use" clause includes a "public purpose" for which Congress could properly exercise its police powers. Acquiring property for redevelopment project for aesthetic improvement was constitutional. 

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (US Supreme Court 1984) – The "Public Use" requirement is coterminous with the scope of a sovereign's police powers. The Government itself does not have to use the property. Hawaii statute that permitted condemnation of residential tracts to transfer ownership to existing lessees to reduce concentration of land ownership served a legitimate public purpose and was not a purely private taking.

Kelo v. City of New London (US Supreme Court 2005) – The concept of "public purpose" is defined broadly. The use of eminent domain by private parties to carry out a city-approved development plan to promote economic development was not unconstitutional. 


Utah Cases:

Three D Corp. v. Salt Lake City (Utah Ct App 1988) Substantial and material impairment of a property owner’s right of access can constitute a compensable taking.

Price Development Co. v. Orem City (Utah 2000) –Redevelopment agencies must follow substantive and procedural rules when exercising eminent domain authority.

Davis County v. Zions First National Bank (Utah Ct App 2002) –Requirements for eminent domain complaint; determining value.

UDOT v. Harvey Real Estate (Utah 2002) –Access rights do not include rights to existing traffic flow or guaranteed access at a specific location.

Provo City v. Ivie (Utah 2004) –Cities may only exercise authority granted to them by the Legislature.

Utah County v. Ivie (Utah 2006) – Discussing the requirements for a condemning entity to obtain an order of immediate occupancy.

Selman v. Box Elder County (Utah 2011) –Discusses the authority of the Ombudsman's Office to mediate takings disputes.

Marion Energy Inc. v. KFJ Ranch Partnership (Utah 2011) –Ambiguity in eminent domain statute construed in favor of property owner.

Schroeder Investments, LC v. Edwards (Utah 2013) –Discusses the “more necessary public use” rule pertaining to eminent domain.