Jennifer Polovetsky of Duane Morris LLP's New York office joins the show to discuss a grab bag of eminent domain issues. The first segment focuses on the special benefits rule (and how it is distinct from the Miller, or Project Influence, Rule). Following that, Jennifer discusses trade fixture issues under New York law, and the differences between that and New Jersey (and Texas) rules.

Links:

J. Polovetsky Biography https://www.duanemorris.com/attorneys/jenniferpolovetsky.html#tab_Biography

Article on Special Benefits: https://www.duanemorris.com/articles/not_so_special_benefit_eminent_domain_0625.html

Article on Trade Fixtures: https://www.duanemorris.com/articles/trade_fixtures_new_york_eminent_domain_cases_what_qualifies_how_are_they_valued_1124.html

Jeff Meader of Eminent Domaine wine joins the podcast to give a landowner's perspective on experiencing eminent domain. Jeff formerly owned a commercial building in Portland that was taken by a local metro transit authority to install a light rail line. After that experience, Jeff took the proceeds and started a winery. In the episode, Jeff talks about the aspects of the ED process he takes issue with, the stresses of living through the process and coordinating with his tenants, and the importance of having counsel. At the end, Jeff talks about the winery, his style of winemaking, and his new life in Ribbon Ridge.

Links:

Eminent Domaine Wine: https://eminentdomaine.com/

In this episode, Kristin Renfro, a California condemnation attorney, joins the show to discuss inverse condemnation and its intersection with tort law. Kristen describes her experience litigating a case involving a catastrophic landslide. She details how inverse condemnation differs from tort law in that it requires no fault—only that a public project caused damage. Kristen explains the legal and scientific challenges of proving causation, including the need for expert geological and geotechnical testimony, and outlines the strategic decisions made during the trial. The conversation also touches on broader implications for property owners, utilities, and constitutional rights, especially in light of California's progressive stance on public utility liability.

The episode concludes with Renfro's review of a recent trip to see Dead & Company at the Sphere in Las Vegas.

Links:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kditlev/

In this episode, Tom Malapit and Eric Rochford--two Indiana condemnation lawyers--join Bobby to discuss a significant eminent domain case they tried last year in Indiana, which they believe is the largest jury verdict in an Indiana condemnation proceeding.

They detail the challenges of the case, including the initial offer from the school corporation, taking over the case from another firm after a failed mediation, and a critical ruling on the admissibility of a prior family transaction involving the property.

They also describe how they used the condemning authority's own witnesses during cross-examination to support their case and fighting for the property's highest and best use as commercial land despite its present designation as farm land. They also share insights into trial logistics, witness order, judge personality, and the valuable feedback received from the jury after the verdict.

Links:

Tom Malapit & Eric Rochford Webiste and Bios: https://www.eminentattorneys.com/about

A few weeks ago, Bobby was invited to give a presentation to IRWA Chapter 36's Spring Seminar on the history of Texas's takings provision—specifically, the evolution of the term "adequate compensation" and what difference there is, if any, between that term and the U.S. Constitution's use of "just compensation." This episode is a live recording of that presentation.

Links:

https://irwachapter36.org/

2025 Spring Seminar: https://irwachapter36.org/meetinginfo.php?id=131&ts=1738095773

Christina Martin of the Pacific Legal Foundation joins to discuss litigating Hennepin County to the Supreme Court. Christina shares some stories about moot arguments ahead of oral arguments with Paul Clement, and compares the tax foreclosure sale in Hennepin to traditional bank foreclosures. After discussing the case, Christina talks about her current work in follow up, including other property taxation issues and blight designations.

Links:

Tyler v. Hennepin Co. Decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_8n59.pdf

Christina Martin at Pacific Legal: https://pacificlegal.org/staff/christina-martin/

Joe Wilkinson of The Avenue Research Group joins the podcast to talk about technology in marketing for eminent domain cases. In addition to traditional mail marketing, Bobby and Joe talk about broader marketing strategy campaigns, geofencing, AI, and why marketing research should both reach clients and also inform lawyers about projects.

At the end of the episode, Joe's interest in archeology becomes the basis for the cross examination.

Links:

Joe Wilkinson LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-wilkinson-829406248/

https://avenueresearchgroup.com/

Contact:

info@avenueresearchgroup.com
P: (803) 509-5078

Emilio Longoria returns to the podcast to make the argument for why condemning authorities should pay landowners' attorneys fees in eminent domain cases. Bobby plays Devil's Advocate and presents the arguments for the existing default rules. After discussing the legal background arguments, they examine a sample of different state structures as examples of how differently states handle attorneys' fees. Emilio offers some practice tips on structuring engagement letters for landowners' counsel.

Link:

https://ackerman-ackerman.com/why-condemnors-should-pay-property-owners-attorney-fees-in-eminent-domain-cases-and-a-50-state-survey-on-the-issue/