Top Law Schools

Can someone really just force an easement on someone's private party without actual necessity? Seems like a Due Process violation even if it is for "public use" (whatever that means for purposes of the bar exam I do not know). Am I understanding this correctly?

Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that an easement by condemnation was essentially Eminant Doman.

Rkl88 wrote:Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that an easement by condemnation was essentially Eminant Doman.

That would have been my original thought but apparently a private party can condemn in this case....?

A'nold wrote:

Rkl88 wrote:Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that an easement by condemnation was essentially Eminant Doman.

That would have been my original thought but apparently a private party can condemn in this case....?

Do they give you an example? AFAIK, the only easements a private party can force unilaterally are necessity and prescription (neither of which have anything to do with public use). But again, this is for multistate purposes so maybe your state has a special rule.

concurrent fork wrote:

A'nold wrote:

Rkl88 wrote:Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken, but it was my understanding that an easement by condemnation was essentially Eminant Doman.

That would have been my original thought but apparently a private party can condemn in this case....?

Do they give you an example? AFAIK, the only easements a private party can force unilaterally are necessity and prescription (neither of which have anything to do with public use). But again, this is for multistate purposes so maybe your state has a special rule.

"In (State) by statute, an owner may also condemn an easement for access if it is for public use and just compensation is paid. The land need not be landlocked; only have to show that an easement is reasonably necessary."

Sounds like a broadened version of the public trust doctrine (if that can technically be called an easement because the public trust doctrine precedes easement law).

Rkl88 wrote:Sounds like a broadened version of the public trust doctrine (if that can technically be called an easement because the public trust doctrine precedes easement law).

So under this rule, basically a supermarket can force an easement over private property without showing necessity b/c it is open to the public? I think that is what it means.