Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
County of Clark v. Sun State Properties, Ltd.
Nevada Supreme Court
Decided July 21, 2003No. 35856Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Gibbons, J., with whom Shearing, J.,
agrees, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
While I agree with the majority that damages for lost profits resulting from the condemnor’s unreasonable delay in bringing the action to trial are compensable, I respectfully dissent from the conclusion that the undivided-fee rule is the only proper means of determining just compensation.
*344The United States Constitution declares that no private property shall “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”1 The Constitution of the State of Nevada similarly provides that “[private property shall not be…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Boston Chamber of Commerce v. City of BostonSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Welch v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1939
- Urban Renewal Agency of City of Reno v. IacomettiNevada Supreme Court · 1963
- People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Lynbar, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1967
- County of Clark v. AlperNevada Supreme Court · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.