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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT