Legal Opinion
Mamo v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided October 18, 2007No. 06-CV-845, 06-CV-1007PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
REID, Associate Judge:
In this case, appellee, the District of Columbia, exercised its power of eminent domain to take property on which appellants, Eyob Mamo and DAG Petroleum III, Inc. (“Mr. Mamo” or “Mamo/DAG” or “DAG Defendants”), operated a gas station and convenience store franchise. Mr. Mamo complains that the trial court’s judgment in favor of the District violated his constitutional Fifth Amendment right to just compensation because: (1) he received no compensation for his franchise, business and goodwill; and (2) the District is estopped from denying him such compensation. Discerning…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- PruneYard Shopping Center v. RobinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- United States Ex Rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. PowelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Potomac Development Corp. v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- Herrion v. Children'S Hospital Natl. Medical CenterDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Watergate East Committee Against Hotel Conversion to Co-Op Apartments v. District of Columbia Zoning CommissionDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- District of Columbia v. Brookstowne Community Development Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2010
- Coleman v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2014
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.