Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/154331118/51/In-Falkner-v-Northern-States-Power-Co-75-Wis-2d-116
Timestamp: 2014-12-21 21:09:22
Document Index: 47578823

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 32', '§ 196', '§ 32', '§ 196', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32']

241. In Falkner v. Northern States Power Co., 75 Wis. 2d 116, for Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, No 2013AP805 (Wis. July 16, 2013)
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks3Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of ContentsON BYPASS FROM THE COURT OF APPEALSNo. 2012AP805 & 2012AP840STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURTLynnea Waller (the Wallers) to facilitate the construction andI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYA. The Waller Property and ATCMound Road on the north before the Wallers purchased theCommission. The legislature authorized the creation of ATC andAct 9. Wisconsin Stat. § 32.02(5)(b) vests entities like ATCNatural Resources (the DNR). See Wis. Stat. § 196.491(3)(requiring the PSC to issue a certificate of public convenienceSullivan and Kurt Kielisch of Appraisal Group One (Group One)Group One considered the Waller property to have its highest andB. The First Circuit Court Decision: The Wallers'Condemnation Commission (the Commission) to determine justC. Waller I: The First AppealD. Post-Waller I: The Valuation Trial andWallers. The circuit court found that the Wallers resided inE. Waller II: The Second AppealStat. § 32.06(3m)). The court of appeals concluded that theF. Post-Waller II: The Third Decision on the Wallers'G. The Relocation Benefits CaseII. STANDARD OF REVIEWN.W.2d 700). "Findings of fact shall not be set aside unlessIII. DISCUSSIONA. Statutory Overview of the Wis. Stat. ch. 32Section 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution provides, "The propertyWis. Stat. § 196.491(3). See also Indus. Energy Grp. v. Pub"sought to be taken." Wis. Stat. § 32.06(2a). The condemnorB. When Must a Property Owner Raise anN.W.2d 821 (Ct. App. 1999)); see also City of Janesville v. CCState Laws approved the Model Eminent Domain Code in 1974Section 208, titled "Offer to Acquire Uneconomic Remnant," reads(emphasis added). The Special Committee replaced the aboveEminent Domain Code lists several examples of "physical" orThe Wisconsin Utilities Association's hypothetical suggests thatWallers argue that ATC's easement substantially impaired the(7) and proceeding thereon." Utilities like ATC are entitled toC. Is the Waller Property an Uneconomic Remnant?Ct. App. 1989) and Spotsylvania County v. Mineral SpringsP.2d at 872-73; Mineral Springs, 2003 WL 21904116 at *3These distinctions are material because——unlike broadATC's easements have substantially impaired the economicD. Are the Wallers Entitled To Litigation Expenses?The court held that ATC did not have the right to condemn onlyE. Are the Wallers "Displaced Persons" and EntitledWis. Stat. § 32.19(2)(e)1. Disputes about relocation benefitsThough ATC offered to purchase the Wallers' entire property for"displaced person" in Wis. Stat. § 32.19(2)(e)(1)b. explicitlyIV. CONCLUSION241. In Falkner v. Northern States Power Co., 75 Wis. 2d 116,Wis. 2d at 135 n.9. The Falkner court therefore recognized thatShifting litigation expenses under Chapter 32 is no different——ATC to court. They chose to litigate until the case had seenSCR 20:1.5 is "the amount involved and the results obtained."Wis. Stat. § 32.28(3)(b) allows an award only when theWisconsin Stat. § 32.19(2)(e) provides as follows:(describing the language in Wis. Stat. § 32.19(2)(e) as applying0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, No 2013AP805 (Wis. July 16, 2013)Waller v. American Transmission Co., LLC, No 2013AP805 (Wis. July 16, 2013)Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,675