ABOUT

Clark Hill is an international team of legal advisors focused on delivering exceptional growth for your business. With locations spanning across the United States, Ireland, and Mexico, we work in agile, collaborative teams, partnering with our clients to help them reach and exceed their business goals. For more information, please visit clarkhill.com. 

 

Eminent Domain Legal Resources
Published Articles
Newspaper Articles
Owners' Guides

 

 

 

Login

 

CONTACT

Stephon B. Bagne

Member, Clark Hill PLC

Phone: (313) 965-8897

Fax: (313) 309-6897

Email: sbagne@clarkhill.com

 

Stephon B. Bagne’s expertise in representing property owners in condemnation cases is widely recognized. Stephon has represented all types of property owners in a variety of situations including vacant and improved property, partial and total takings, easement and fee acquisitions, involving commercial and residential properties. He has won jury trials in courts throughout the State of Michigan and successfully defended those verdicts before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Stephon has prevailed in challenges of the necessity of takings and negotiated less onerous acquisitions in partial taking matters. He regularly speaks and writes about eminent domain and other real estate law issues for a variety of professional organizations. For a more complete bio, please click here.

 

 

 

 

ReturnReturn to Article

Recommend Michigan Supreme Court Refuses to Restrict Inverse Condemnation in Flint Water Case (Email)

This action will generate an email recommending this article to the recipient of your choice. Note that your email address and your recipient's email address are not logged by this system.

EmailEmail Article Link

The email sent will contain a link to this article, the article title, and an article excerpt (if available). For security reasons, your IP address will also be included in the sent email.

Article Excerpt:

Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court declined to adopt a narrow view of the unique or special injury element in inverse condemnation, allowing Flint water plaintiffs’ case to proceed.

The tragic events in Flint, Michigan relating to tainted water are well-known throughout the country.  Not surprisingly, they resulted in litigation.  Last week, the Michigan Supreme Court issued 132 pages of competing opinions. A clear majority of the Court declined to dismiss inverse condemnation claims made by Flint residents.  

First, the Court explained what inverse condemnation involves. “A claim of inverse condemnation is ‘a cause of action against a governmental defendant to recover the value of property which has been taken . . . even though no formal exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency.’  …  ‘Inverse condemnation can occur without a physical taking of the property; a diminution in the value of the property or a partial destruction can constitute a ‘taking.’” The majority then identified the elements for inverse condemnation. The Court did not break any new ground, relying upon past precedents. “‘[A]  plaintiff  alleging  inverse  condemnation  must  prove  a  causal  connection between the government’s action and the alleged damages.’ … Government actions directed at a plaintiff’s property must have ‘the effect of limiting the use of the property.’ … ‘[A]ll of the [defendants’] actions in the aggregate, as opposed to just one incident, must be analyzed to determine the extent of the taking.’ … A plaintiff ‘must establish (1) that the government’s actions were a substantial cause of the decline of the property’s value and (2) that the government abused its powers in affirmative actions directly aimed at the property.’”


Article Link:
Your Name:
Your Email:
Recipient Email:
Message: