Provo River Water Users' Ass'n v. Carlson
Utah Supreme Court
1DissentLarson, Justice
I dissent.
The right of eminent domain exists only upon the condition that full payment be made to the owner of the property taken for all damages he sustains by or as a result of the taking of the property. This contemplates not only payment for the property actually taken for use of the condemnor but for damages resulting to the condemnee by the loss of the property so taken. Normally we say the condemnee is entitled to recover the value of the land actually taken, plus the damages to the land not taken. This expression too often leads to misapplication of the true rule of recovery of…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- City of Stockton v. EllingwoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- State v. HoblittMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Dean v. County Board of EducationSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
- City of Stockton v. MarengoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1936
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.