Opinion ID: 2597016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eminent Domain Overview

Text: The City commenced an action in eminent domain accompanied by a declaration of taking. [8] Condemnation under a declaration of taking proceeds in two phases. In the face of objections to the taking, the superior court must determine whether the condemnor has legal authority to take property for the proposed use, [9] what kind of property interest may be taken, [10] and whether the taking is by necessity for a public use or purpose in a manner compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. [11] The property owner may object to authority and necessity for the taking by filing a motion to dismiss under Civil Rule 72(h)(2)(A); but if the court finds that authority exists and the condemnor's reasoning is not arbitrary, title to the land, received upon filing the declaration of taking, [12] may not be divested. [13] A ruling on authority and necessity is a final judgment that may be appealed. [14] The court then begins proceedings to determine just compensation for the property taken. [15] Just compensation may include compensation for a landowner's loss of access to the network of city streets because an owner of abutting land has a right of access to and from a public street or highway. [16] The scope of this right is limited to a `right of reasonable access.' [17]