The NC case of Kirby vs. N.C. Department of Transportation concerns NCDOT actions that amounted to an inverse condemnation (which means the State took a person’s land for government purpose without condemning them – paying them just compensation). Currently the NCDOT has petitioned the N.C. Supreme Court to hear the case NC property owners won in the N.C. Court of Appeals.

This recent Kirby decision has been cited as far as Nevada. However, in Nevada the DOT only announced a future plan whereas in NC the DOT actually recorded the MAP ACT CORRIDOR plans in the Register of Deeds (Cumberland, Forsyth, Guilford, Wake, Pender, Cleveland), which was indexed to affected property owners, and prohibited NC property owners from improvements, not to mention prevented them from being able to sell their land (who wants to buy property that will be taken for a highway?).

Per “In State ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Eighth Judicial Circuit, No. 15-19376 (June 25, 2015), the Nevada Supreme Court covered territory addressed by other courts recently (see here by North Carolina, Florida, and here by California) — whether there’s a taking when an agency with the power of eminent domain takes steps to condemn property, but hasn’t actually done so yet. Here, the Nevada court concluded that there wasn’t a taking, because even though the DOT announced “Project Neon,” a “six-phase, 20- to 25- year highway improvement for the Interstate Highway 15 (I-15) corridor between Sahara Avenue and the U.S. Route 95/I-15 interchange in Las Vegas” which included plaintiff’s property, it did not result in a “de facto moratorium” on development as the property owner characterized it.”

The Nevada court distinguished that case from NC, Florida, and others where in NC there was a show of damages, in Nevada the plaintiff failed to argue damages at the trial level.

Call to discuss your Condemnation or NC Inverse Condemnation Case


Our Eminent Domain Attorneys in NC are the attorneys who won the landmark Kirby ruling.