Publications

Section Newsletter Articles on Eminent Domain

Condemnation actions—In rem or quasi in rem? By Marylou Lowder Kent Government Lawyers, December 2012 The recent case of Village of Algonquin v. Lowe seems to indicate that if a condemning authority knew or should have known that a party had an unrecorded interest in the property, service by publication may not be sufficient and any judgment rendered in the condemnation action would not be binding on any party not properly before the court.
Sea change in Illinois eminent domain law By Pat Lord Local Government Law, December 2010 The difficulties that eminent domain petitioners face under the New Eminent Domain Act will likely be exacerbated by the recent case of Forest Preserve District of DuPage County v. First National Bank of Franklin Park et al.
Eminent domain—SWIDA is still alive! By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, December 2008 In the lawsuit prior to City of Chicago v. Midland Smelting Company, the City attempted to acquire Midland’s property through its use of the power of eminent domain.
Eminent domain—How do you value a leasehold interest? By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, October 2008 In 2002, IDOT filed an eminent domain action to acquire a portion of property owned by the Defendant, East Side Development.
Eminent domain—Who is an owner? By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, October 2008 The Anderson case involved the issue of who is properly considered an owner in an eminent domain proceeding and thereby entitled to the statutory rights attendant thereto.
Eminent domain update By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, December 2007 Two recent decisions should be of interest to attorneys whose practice involves any aspect of eminent domain law.
The changing meaning and purposes of the Public Use Limitation on Eminent Domain By Aaron N. Gruen Local Government Law, November 2005 The United States Constitution permits the condemnation of private property for “public use”; a power enumerated in the “Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
“Taking individual homes and private property for public use”—What impact will the Kelo ruling have in Illinois? General Practice, Solo, and Small Firm, November 2005 In its landmark decision of June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L.Ed.2d 439, 73 USL W 4552, established the extent of a city’s authority to seize private property for commercial development.
Eminent domain in Illinois after Kelo v. New London By Brian Martin Local Government Law, September 2005 Both the United States and Illinois Constitutions provide that private property may only be taken by the government if the taking is for a "public use" and the owner is paid just compensation.
Recent litigation of interest By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, July 2005 Chicago brought an action alleging violations of its Building Code.
Eminent domain-Can amortization constitute just compensation? By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, April 2005 The Second District Appellate Court recently considered this question in Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corporation v. City of West Chicago decided February 8, 2005.
Eminent domain-Billboards By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, February 2005 Lamar Advantage v. Addison Park District involved the issue of whether the required removal of a billboard triggers the right to just compensation for the owner of the billboard.
How much is that property worth? By John H. Brechin Local Government Law, August 2000 Department of Transportation v. Bolas, decided May 23, 2000, involved an eminent domain action by IDOT to acquire approximately one acre of a 58-acre farm for a roadway improvement.