Legal Opinion
United States v. Consolidated Mayflower Mines, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided July 24, 1995No. Nos. 93-4138, 93-4151PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FAIRCHILD, Senior Circuit Judge.
These appeals, argued the same day, arise from a condemnation trial.1 The government, pursuant to its power of eminent domain, took 18.22 acres of land, except subsurface minerals, owned by Consolidated Mayflower Mines, Inc. (“CMMI”), for relocation of United States Highway 40 and a natural gas pipeline due to construction of a dam and reservoir near Heber City, Utah. The taking date was March 22, 1988. The parties agreed that the land was worth $67,500, if valued for development as recreational home *1472sites. CMMI claimed, however, that the highest and best use…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Olson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Asarco Inc. v. KadishSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. PowelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- McCandless v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Montana Railway Co. v. WarrenSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- 69 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 163, 67 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,785 Laurie Fitzgerald and Aaron Hazard v. The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company D/B/A U.S. West Communications, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Fitzgerald v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- United States v. Consolidated Mayflower Mines, Inc., Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds and Stichting Mayflower Recreational Fonds, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellees, and 18.57 Acres Land, More or Less Located in Central Wasatch County, State of Utah, United States of America v. 18.57 Acres of Land, More or Less Located in Central Wasatch County, State of Utah, and Consolidated Mayflower Mines, Inc., Stichting Mayflower Mountain Fonds, Stichting Mayflower Recreational Fonds, Defendants-Intervenors-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995