Introductory Directions to the Court

The following are standard jury instructions for cases involving the taking of private property by government agencies or utility companies. The taking can occur either (1) through formal action instituted by the condemning authority (de jure) or (2) by extrajudicial conduct on the part of the condemning authority which is inimical to an owner’s property interests to such an extreme degree as to constitute a constitutional de facto taking giving rise to an inverse condemnation action. It should be noted at the outset that all eminent domain cases, except inverse condemnation cases, are commenced pursuant to a particular enabling statute which may have some bearing on the jury instructions to be given.

These standard instructions and any supplementary instructions should be preceded by the applicable standard instructions dealing with credibility (M Civ JI 4.01–4.12) and the usual cautionary instructions (M Civ JI 3.01–3.15).

These jury instructions do not purport to cover all situations which may occur in an eminent domain case. There are many issues which do not arise with sufficient frequency to warrant inclusion in a set of standard jury instructions, yet are important or even crucial in those few cases in which they do arise. In addition, eminent domain is a rapidly changing area in which new issues may arise which are not covered by these jury instructions. In either case it is appropriate for additional jury instructions to be given by the trial judge. Some of the issues which arise infrequently and are therefore not covered by these jury instructions are listed below with some important cases. This list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Cost to Cure:

In re Widening of Bagley Avenue, 248 Mich 1; 226 NW 688 (1929)

Detroit v Loula, 227 Mich 189; 198 NW 837 (1924)

Necessity:

Grand Rapids Board of Education v Baczewski, 340 Mich 265; 65 NW2d 810 (1954)

In re Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority’s Petition, 306 Mich 373; 10 NW2d 920 (1943)

Lansing v Jury Rowe Realty Co, 59 Mich App 316; 229 NW2d 432 (1975)

Leasehold Interest:

Pierson v H R Leonard Furniture Co, 268 Mich 507; 256 NW 529 (1934)

Frustration of Plans for Business Expansion—Loss of Potential Use:

State Highway Commission v Great Lakes Express Co, 50 Mich App 170; 213 NW2d 239 (1973)

Scope of the Parcel in Partial Taking Cases:

State Highway Commissioner v Snell, 8 Mich App 299; 154 NW2d 631 (1967)

Port Huron & S W R Co v Voorheis, 50 Mich 506; 15 NW 882 (1883)

In re Slum Clearance, 331 Mich 714; 50 NW2d 340 (1951)

Denial of Access:

Pearsall v Board of Supervisors, 74 Mich 558; 42 NW 77 (1889)

Violation of Restrictive Covenants:

Bales v State Highway Commission, 72 Mich App 50; 249 NW2d 158 (1976)

Johnstone v Detroit, GH & M R Co, 245 Mich 65; 22 NW 325 (1928)

Allen v Detroit, 167 Mich 464; 133 NW 317 (1911)

Vacation of an Alley:

Forster v Pontiac, 56 Mich App 415; 224 NW2d 325 (1974)

Diversion of Traffic:

State Highway Commissioner v Watt, 374 Mich 300; 132 NW2d 113 (1965)

State Highway Commissioner v Gulf Oil Corp, 377 Mich 309; 140 NW2d 500 (1966)

Special Adaptability of Property to Use for Which It Is Being Taken:

Allegan v Vonasek, 261 Mich 16; 245 NW 557 (1932)

Loss of Light, Air and View:

Gerson v Lansing, 250 Mich 587; 231 NW 125 (1930)

Noise:

Boyne City, G & A R Co v Anderson, 146 Mich 328; 109 NW 429 (1906)

Lost Rentals:

Muskegon v DeVries, 59 Mich App 415; 229 NW2d 479 (1975)

See 2 Michigan Municipal Law (ICLE 1980), ch 13, for further discussion and sources.

History

Amended September 1998.