evidence at trial required to avoid judgment based solely on property owner's allegation that a taking occurred
How later courts described this case
- evidence at trial required to avoid judgment based solely on property owner's allegation that a taking occurred
- noting that only a jury demand preserves a challenge to the amount of compensation awarded
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARRETT, J.,
concurs in part; dissents in part:
¶ 1 I agree with all of this opinion, except the reversal and remand to determine whether there was a taking.
¶2 ODOT did not make an issue as to “taking” before the trial court. ■ Since the statutory rules relating to eminent domain apply as far as they go, and since there are no statutes prescribing the procedure- to follow to present the issue as to the existence of a taking in a reverse condemnation case, the pleading code applies.
¶ 3 ODOT’s failure to deny the existence of the taking as alleged by Landowners constitutes a confession by ODOT that there was a taking. In addition, I would sustáin Landowners request for appellate attorney fees. I respectfully dissent.