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.
- Big Box Health Care: Are You Ready for Walmart Care Clinics? (6 replies)
- ISIS (109 replies)
- Does this make you feel safer? (4 replies)
- Surprise, surprise! (49 replies)
- All the Companies Making Money From Healthcare.gov in One Chart (26 replies)
- GOP governors expanding Medicaid (4 replies)
- Making up new law to circumvent elected control of schools? (33 replies)
- Wanted to publicly thank someone (21 replies)
- Bill Ailor sued in Circuit Court (7 replies)
- Remedial civics needed in J-school? (7 replies)
- ETSPJ denounces McIntyre - BOE "agreement" (5 replies)
- McIntyre: Pregnancy is a "physical disability?" (65 replies)