Judge Or Jury? A Critical Eminent Domain Question Answered

by Nossaman LLP

Originally Published in Law360 - August 16, 2013.

When a public agency seeks to impose a land exaction on a planned development, the analysis of whether the proposed dedication meets the necessary "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests is often cumbersome and complex.

It gets even trickier in eminent domain actions where no proposed development exists, and the parties are valuing property based on a hypothetical, highest and best use that would potentially trigger a dedication requirement.

In such situations, if the property being acquired would likely be subject to a lawful dedication, the property is valued either:

(1) at its current use (i.e., a use that would not trigger the dedication); or

(2) at the highest and best use (i.e., a use that would trigger the dedication), subtracting out the land that would be subject to the dedication requirement.

But who makes the critical findings regarding the likelihood and legitimacy of a dedication — the judge or the jury?

In a published California state appeals court decision, City of Perris v. Stamper (August 9, 2013), the court resolved this long-standing question, holding that because these questions involve factual determinations impacting the property's fair market value, they must be decided by a jury.


The Stampers owned nine acres of vacant, industrially-zoned land in the city of Perris. In 2009, the city filed an eminent domain action to acquire the property needed for a 94-foot-wide truck route running through the middle of the Stampers' property.

The city determined that the Stampers would have been required to dedicate the truck-route property as a condition of any future development and therefore appraised the take as undevelopable agricultural land. The Stampers argued that the dedication requirement should not be considered in determining fair market value because it was not reasonably probable that the city would impose the dedication requirement and, if imposed, the dedication would be unconstitutional.

Thus, the Stampers argued that the acquisition should be valued at its highest and best use as a light industrial property without considering the dedication requirement.

The trial court heard evidence regarding the "reasonable probability" and constitutionality of the city's proposed dedication and determined that the dedication requirement qualified as reasonably probable and constitutional. The Stampers then stipulated to the city's appraised agricultural value and appealed, claiming it was inappropriate for the court — as opposed to the jury — to determine the factual issues concerning the dedication requirement.

The Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the court agreed with the Stampers, holding that issues surrounding the dedication requirement are "essential to the determination of ‘just compensation' and therefore must be ascertained by a jury." This finding that the issues are essential to determining just compensation is crucial, since eminent domain cases present one of the unique areas of the law where the judge — not the jury — decides many issues of fact. In particular, while the jury decides factual issues related to just compensation, the judge determines all other issues of law and fact. (See People v. Ricciardi (1943) 23 Cal.2d 390, 402.)

The court first walked through the long history of eminent domain decisions involving dedications, explaining that when condemned property has to be dedicated as a condition of developing the larger parcel, the condemned property must be valued at its current use because it could never be used for any other purpose.

However, before property can be valued in such a manner, the public agency must demonstrate:

(1) there is a "reasonable probability" that the dedication requirement would be imposed if the owners sought to develop the property, and

(2) the proposed dedication requirement would have been constitutionally permissible.

The court also explained that in order to satisfy the second prong, the dedication must satisfy the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.

Relying on Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 954, the court held that the likelihood and nexus/proportionality of a dedication requirement is a factual determination for a jury, similar to the jury's role in determining whether there is a reasonable probability of a zoning change. Because these issues present factual questions impacting a property's fair market value, they are within the jury's province.

The court explained that the trial court should only decide these issues on its own when exercising its role as "gatekeeper" (i.e., where there is insufficient evidence to allow reasonable jurors to conclude the city would not require dedication of the take as a development condition). Therefore, because the trial court improperly usurped the role of the jury, the court reversed.

For purposes of remand, the court also noted that the jury was not to consider the possibility of future development concessions to the property owner in the event the property's future development resulted in less impacts than anticipated at the time of the eminent domain proceeding.

While a prior appeals court decision, State Route 4 Bypass Authority v. Superior Court (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1546, may have indicated otherwise, the Stamper court clarified that "the rough proportionality test may [not] be met based on promises of future ‘negotiation, modification or offset.'"

These future promises are unenforceable, and the fair market value of the condemned property, together with severance damages and all other reasonably foreseeable damages resulting from the condemnation, must once and for all be fixed in the condemnation proceeding.


The Stamper decision provides clarity on the judge's limited role as gatekeeper when it comes to dedication determinations. By further expanding on the California Supreme Court's decision that a reasonable probability of a zone change falls within the jury's province, the appeals court's broad view here will likely be relied upon by property owners to argue that other issues of contested fact — as long as they bear upon fair market value — also must be decided by the jury.

The Stamper decision also further supports the principle that foreseeable damages in eminent domain actions must be fixed once and for all, meaning a public agency may have difficulty introducing evidence of future likelihood or possibilities in an attempt to reduce damages.

This becomes especially problematic for agencies where an eminent domain action proceeds to trial before the project has been constructed. Agencies must be extremely careful to clarify in their resolutions of necessity what enforceable promises the agency intends to abide by; otherwise, informal concessions or mitigation efforts may be inadmissible.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Nossaman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Nossaman LLP

Nossaman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.