Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Constitutional Law—Eminent Domain—Just Compensation For A Lessee's Renewal Expectation—Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. V. United States, 409 U.S. 470 (1973), Mark W. Pennak
Washington Law Review
The district court accepted Almota's theory of valuation, but was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court reinstated the district court's judgment. Held: Just compensation for a leasehold bearing improvements owned by the lessee is measured by what a willing buyer would pay to a willing seller for the leasehold, taking into account the possibility of renewal. Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 470 (1973).
Necessity For Compensation For Violation Of A Restrictive Covenant In An Eminent Domain Proceeding, Wayne C. Booth
Necessity For Compensation For Violation Of A Restrictive Covenant In An Eminent Domain Proceeding, Wayne C. Booth
Washington Law Review
In eminent domain proceedings where the state or a repository of state power seeks to use land within a restricted residence area for a purpose not consistent with the restrictive covenants, recovery of compensation by adjacent owners in the subdivision for this violation seems dependent upon whether the interest created by the covenants in the adjacent owners is a "property right". If it is a property right it can not under most state and the federal constitutions be taken by eminent domain unless compensation is made.' On the other hand, if the interest be not "property" no compensation need be …