US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

On condemnation proceedings, adaptability to the purposes for which the land could be used most profitably can be considered only so far as the public would have considered it had the land been offered for sale in the absence of the exercise of eminent domain.

The owner is entitled to the value of the property taken -- that is, what it fairly may be believed a purchaser in fair market conditions would have given for it and not what a tribunal at a later date may think a purchaser would have been wise to give.

The owner is not entitled to added value resulting from the union of his lot with other lots when the union was the result of the exercise of eminent domain, and would not otherwise have been practicable.

The owner is entitled to rise in value before the taking not caused by the expectation of that event.

In this case, involving condemnation of property in New York, held that, although maps showing the parcels to be taken had been filed and notice posted on the property, one not a resident of New York, purchasing before the petition was filed, could properly remove the case into the federal court as the proceeding was not commenced until after the petition for appointment of commissioners had been filed.

206 F.3d 9, reversed. chanrobles.com-red

Page 239 U. S. 58

The facts, which involve the validity of an award by commissioners for land taken for the Ashokan Reservoir in New York, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 239 U. S. 60