Court Opinion

ID: 9515662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:59:17.29738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:31.908088
License: Public Domain

MEIERHENRY, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
[¶ 36.] I concur with the majority opinion on issue two that res judicata does not bar the Owners from future condemnation proceedings for damages to the 309 acres. I disagree that the summary judgment order should be affirmed. If anything, the County’s motion for summary judgment should have been denied because the issue of damages to the 309 acres was not ripe for determination. The majority opinion concludes that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate condemnation over the 309 acres not described in the petition. Supra ¶ 32. I agree. But under this same analysis, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter summary judgment on that issue.
[¶ 37.] The issue of damages to the 309 acres was not ripe because of the County’s handling of the case, not because of some failure by the Owners. The County only defined its taking to include the 206 acres. If the County contemplated aircraft invading the airspace over the remaining property, the County certainly did not include that airspace in the declaration of taking. Likewise, no zoning ordinances or airport approach plans were adopted. Nevertheless, the summary judgment order against the Owners still stands under the majority opinion’s holding. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction and the issue was not ripe, I would reverse and vacate the summary judgment order.