ILNews

SCOTUS denies Evansville shopping center case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The nation's highest court has refused to accept a case from the Indiana Supreme Court, which almost a year ago reduced a $2.3 million jury award in favor of an Evansville shopping center owner because of traffic flow issues created by the state.

At a private conference on Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in the case of Kimco of Evansville, et al. v. State of Indiana, No. 09-197. The petition for writ of certiorari asked the justices to address questions about inverse condemnation as it applies to federal law, and what constitutes "judicial taking" or "judicial legislation," but the high court declined, meaning the 3-2 decision from Indiana's justices in March 2009 remains in effect.

The case involved the Plaza East Shopping Center and the state's acquisition of a strip of land needed to improve traffic flow onto a nearby expressway. That action sparked the litigation, in which Kimco claimed the construction and taking of that land affected traffic flow into and out of the shopping center and depreciated its value. The jury had awarded $2.3 million in finding that the company suffered a particular, private injury resulting from interference of Kimco's rights of ingress and egress. The Indiana Court of Appeals had affirmed that, but the Supreme Court found that Kimco was only entitled to $100,700 - the value of the physical taking of the strip of land and temporary construction easement.

Attorneys for the Indiana shopping center sought review from the SCOTUS, claiming in part that the state justices' ruling overruled federal precedent on land taking and compensation.

Now, the state court's ruling that reversed the Vanderburgh Superior judgment stands and its being remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT