The facts that gave rise to the Court’s finding are straight forward. Kearney was the owner of a 52 acre parcel in California. In 2000, the Government decided to take the property using condemnation. An engineering firm was hired to conduct septic testing on the land. After conducting the testing Kearney’s attorneys made several requests for the test results. No test results were ever produced. At trial the condemner’s attorneys indicated that no testing had been performed.

The State offered to pay $850,000.00 and Kearney asked for $1.4 million. Kearney’s demand was based primarily on her own expert’s testimony about septic testing. The jury awarded $953,000.00.

Following the jury’s decision Kearney was able to finally gain access to the testing results. In Kearney’s opinion these results supported a much higher valuation. After being denied remedies at the State Court level she brought an action alleging RICO violations. In short she alleged that the government intentionally withheld the test results and that she would have received a larger award if the results had been properly put before the jury.

The Court held that the Government was traditionally immune from these types of actions. However, an exception to the general rule exists that would allow liability to accrue to the government where it made intentional misrepresentations or unlawful methods of advocacy. The Appellate Court went on to order that Kearney should be entitled to a jury decision on whether the failure to produce the test results by the government rose to such a level.

If you have questions about this article or eminent domain and condemnation proceedings in general feel free to give one of the attorneys at Sever Storey a call at 888-318-3761 or visit us on the web at www.severstorey.com.