Court Opinion

ID: 9598194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:06:21.883825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:59.813724
License: Public Domain

GARRETT, J.,
concurs in part; dissents in part:
¶ 1 I agree with all of this opinion, except the reversal and remand to determine whether there was a taking.
¶2 ODOT did not make an issue as to “taking” before the trial court. ■ Since the statutory rules relating to eminent domain apply as far as they go, and since there are no statutes prescribing the procedure- to follow to present the issue as to the existence of a taking in a reverse condemnation case, the pleading code applies.
¶ 3 ODOT’s failure to deny the existence of the taking as alleged by Landowners constitutes a confession by ODOT that there was a taking. In addition, I would sustáin Landowners request for appellate attorney fees. I respectfully dissent.