Court Opinion

ID: 9740236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:30:37.12823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.068588
License: Public Domain

WAHL, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I dissent only from the reversal of the trial court’s award of attorneys’ and experts’ fees. We hold today that the ordinance here challenged would, if allowed to stand, result in a taking of plaintiff’s property for which compensation would be required. Had it not been challenged, there is no question that an uncompensated taking would have occurred. I agree that defendants do and should have the option of repealing the ordinance. Plaintiffs, however have only now been advised in this opinion clarifying the language in Holaway v. City of Pipestone which takings give rise to inverse condemnation and which provide the basis for injunctive relief. It is unfair that plaintiffs should have to bear the burden of that clarification at their own expense when they had reason to believe that inverse condemnation would lie. I would affirm the award of fees in this case.