Legal Opinion

Charleston Urban Renewal Authority v. Courtland Co.

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided October 30, 1998No. 25015PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STARCHER, Justice:

In the instant case, the Courtland Company (“Courtland”) challenges the authority of the Charleston Urban Redevelopment Authority (“CURA”) to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire land (“the Court-land Property”) that is owned by Courtland and is located in downtown Charleston.

CURA wants to acquire and develop the Courtland Property as part of a unified business district, pursuant to the provisions of CURA’s redevelopment plan for the downtown Charleston area. The Courtland Property is presently being used as a privately owned commercial parking lot and is wholly…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
  2. AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Public Citizen, Inc. v. First National Bank in FairmontWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1996
  4. State Ex Rel. West Virginia Housing Development Fund v. CopenhaverWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Chapman v. Huntington, West Virginia, Housing AuthorityWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1939

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Aposporos v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  2. Mountain Valley Pipeline v. Brian C. and Doris W. McCurdyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Potomac Edison Co. v. Jefferson County Planning & Zoning CommissionWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Mountain Valley Pipeline v. Brian C. and Doris W. McCurdyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016
  5. Mountain Valley Pipeline v. Brian C. and Doris W. McCurdyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2016

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API