A Blount Co. couple says runoff from construction of the Union Grove Elementary School ruined their property so they sued for damages. They claim both "inverse condemnation" (e.g. taking by eminent domain) and an alternative negligence claim under "nuisance" theory.
Blount Co. got the lawsuit thrown out based on the the statute of limitations on the "taking" claim. The trial court, upheld on appeal, concluded that the "nuisance" claim goes out with it because their "taking" claim, which was filed too late, proved the damage to their property was "permanent" and thus not an ongoing nuisance.
Catch-22 and no justice for the injured party. There's probably a lesson here somewhere.
- Burchett: McIntyre needs to go (41 replies)
- Redefining Scrooge (8 replies)
- High profile investor: Charter schools are a business (8 replies)
- ISIS (143 replies)
- Gordon Ball earns an 'F' from NRA (1 reply)
- Tennessee unemployment, poverty rates increase (1 reply)
- City of Alcoa-Sam's Club first step in New Urbanism? (7 replies)
- The Artful Dodger: Dr. Briggs "radio silence" on Cheri Siler's invitation to debate (35 replies)
- Discussion about new hybrid pension plan for TN educators (1 reply)
- Interesting background on new Attorney General (25 replies)
- Cagle: Tough times ahead for Haslsm (9 replies)
- Most educated town in every state (2 replies)
- Sep 22 2014 - 4:15pm (3 days 13 min from now)
- Sep 23 2014 - 6:15pm (4 days 2 hours from now)
- Sep 23 2014 - 7:00pm (4 days 2 hours from now)
- Sep 25 2014 - 6:00pm (6 days 1 hour from now)