Department of Transportation (DOT) filed petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging district court’s grant of partial summary judgment to property owner in inverse condemnation proceeding.
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that:
- Supreme Court would consider DOT’s petition for writ of mandamus;
- City’s amendment to its general master plan to allow for certain road widening did not constitute a regulatory taking of property;
- DOT did not take property within meaning of Fifth Amendment takings clause; and
- DOT did not take property within meaning of state takings clause.
Supreme Court would consider Department of Transportation’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging district court’s partial summary judgment for property owner in inverse condemnation action, where petition raised an important issue regarding state takings law, petition presented an important question of policy about an agency’s ability to engage in efficient, long-term planning dependent on federal funding, and given highway project’s magnitude as a 20 to 25 year, six-phase freeway improvement project requiring multiple acquisitions of private property and inevitability of other similar long-term projects in the future, addressing issues raised in petition would serve judicial economy.
City’s amendment to its general master plan to allow for certain road widening did not constitute a regulatory taking of property; road-widening amendment had no demonstrated nexus to the property at issue so any impact on the property would be negligible, and given need to widen specific streets to ensure adequate access to private property and construction areas during a freeway project, character of government action was more akin to adjusting benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good than to a physical invasion.
Department of Transportation (DOT) did not take property within meaning of Fifth Amendment takings clause; environmental assessment only indicated that the owner’s property would likely be needed 18 years in the future, loss of tenants was theoretically influenced by owner’s highlighting DOT’s anticipated need of property, and owner provided no evidence of fair market values or rental charges for similarly situated properties with which to determine any real decrease in fair market value or economic use of the property.
Department of Transportation (DOT) did not take property within meaning of state takings clause when it prepared an environmental assessment which indicated that it might need the property 18 years in the future as part of a 20 to 25 year freeway improvement project.