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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT