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.
- ISIS (82 replies)
- All the Companies Making Money From Healthcare.gov in One Chart (14 replies)
- Does this make you feel safer? (3 replies)
- ETSPJ denounces McIntyre - BOE "agreement" (4 replies)
- Wanted to publicly thank someone (20 replies)
- Making up new law to circumvent elected control of schools? (30 replies)
- Bill Ailor sued in Circuit Court (3 replies)
- McIntyre: Pregnancy is a "physical disability?" (63 replies)
- He lost me at "one-time cost" (18 replies)
- KnoxGOP: The best government money can buy (23 replies)
- Dangers hidden in the education debate (9 replies)
- Surprise, surprise! (41 replies)