Opinion ID: 890336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: ¶74 We affirm the District Court on all but two issues. First, having concluded under Issue 3 that the District Court applied an incorrect measure of compensation, we reverse the court’s assessment of Landowners’ damages for the City’s taking of their land and remand for recalculation. The District Court must apply a measure of compensation that 39 reflects, as closely as possible, the value of Landowners’ land at the time it was seized, i.e., in April 2005. In its discretion, the court may accept further evidence on this issue. Second, having concluded under Issue 5 that the District Court erroneously barred Landowners’ counsel from passing on to his clients the costs and fees incurred in proving underlying litigation expenses other than attorney’s fees, we vacate this portion of the court’s judgment and remand for a determination of the costs and fees incurred in proving those underlying expenses (which counsel may pass on to his clients). ¶75 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. /S/ BETH BAKER We concur: /S/ MIKE McGRATH /S/ PATRICIA COTTER /S/ JIM RICE /S/ BRIAN MORRIS 40