Court Opinion

ID: 9480649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:54:33.942347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:49.355863
License: Public Domain

PELL, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Finding myself not in agreement with the result reached by the majority in this appeal, I respectfully dissent. Subsequent to the entry of a judgment in the amount of the jury award in this case, the landowners filed an application for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The trial judge denied this motion and this appeal followed. The majority opinion affirms the action of the district court.
Judge Shabaz addressed the issue of the Act’s “substantial justification” relying principally on the Eighth Circuit’s analysis of the issue in United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, 794 F.2d 1313 (8th Cir.1986). The majority accepts the use of this case and I have no quarrel with its being the guiding star for the disposition here. My objection is to the application of the test in this case. It appears to me that both the district court and this court are placing overemphasis on the selection of an experienced, qualified, and competent appraiser. I have no reason to question the qualifications in this respect of Everett Strand. There is another prong, however, in the Eighth Circuit’s analysis and that is that the condemnor, in relying on the qualities of its appraiser, must also have conducted itself “without any evidence of bad faith on its part.”
The landowners for now have set forth a lengthy statement of alleged facts supporting their position that the Government consistently engaged in conduct amounting to bad faith in negotiations. As a result, substantial additional attorneys’ fees had to be incurred to take this case through trial. As far as I can determine from the record, very little, if any, of this factual matter was material to, or brought out, in the one-day jury trial on values.
I dissent because the Bradacs simply have not had their day in court on the issue of bad faith and I would hold that we should vacate the ruling below and remand the case for an evidentiary hearing on the unresolved issue of bad faith.