A. The court or jury shall ascertain and assess:
1. The value of the property sought to be condemned and all improvements on the property pertaining to the realty, and of each and every separate estate or interest in the property, and if it consists of different parcels, the value of each parcel and each estate or interest in the parcel separately.
2. If the property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a larger parcel, the damages that will accrue to the portion not sought to be condemned by reason of its severance from the portion sought to be condemned, and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed by the plaintiff.
3. How much the portion not sought to be condemned and each estate or interest in the portion will be benefited separately, if at all, by construction of the improvement proposed by the plaintiff. If the benefit is equal to the damages assessed under paragraph 2 of this subsection, the owner of the parcel shall be allowed no compensation except for the value of the portion taken, but if the benefit is less than the damages so assessed, the benefit shall be deducted from the damages, and the remainder shall be the only damages allowed in addition to the value.
4. If the property sought to be condemned is for a railroad, the cost of good and sufficient fences along the line of the railroad, and the cost of cattle guards where fences may cross the line of the railroad.
B. As far as practicable, compensation shall be assessed for each source of damage separately.
C. Value shall be determined by ascertaining the most probable price estimated in terms of cash in United States dollars or comparable market financial arrangements that the property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market, with reasonable time allowed in which to find a purchaser, buying with knowledge of all of the uses and purposes to which it was adapted and for which it was capable.
D. For the purpose of assessing compensation and damages with respect to property sought to be condemned by this state for transportation purposes, in addition to subsections A and B of this section, the court or a jury shall assess compensation and damages pursuant to sections 28-7091 and 28-7097.
Notes of Decisions
Dixon v. City of Phoenix (1992)
arizctapp · cites it 16×
“The City responds that, notwithstanding the right of entry agreement, the action is still one in eminent domain.”
City of Scottsdale v. Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. of Arizona, Inc. (1978)
arizctapp · cites it 12×
“" (emphasis added) Thus, while Eller's personal property may be "deemed" to be part of the real property for the purposes of requiring compensation to be paid and determining its fair market value, such personal property interest does not provide for any other damages not…”
State Ex Rel. Morrison v. Jay Six Cattle Co. (1960)
ariz · cites it 16×
“A.R.S. § 12-1122 prescribes the proper measure as the value of the condemned land plus severance damages or difference in value of the remaining land.”
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler (1991)
ariz · cites it 13×
“A.R.S. § 12-1122 and Construction Delay In its petition, DOT asserts that § 12-1122(A) requires the jury to measure both severance damages and special benefits by applying the fiction that the freeway was completed and fully operational immediately following the taking.”
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan (1987)
ariz · cites it 12×
“There is no difference in value of the part taken, whether the city takes the widening strip from the front or the rear.”
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. (1993)
arizctapp · cites it 2×
“See A.R.S. § 12-1122(A). The court in Filler determined that construction delay which is so significant that it may affect market value of property may be considered in determining severance damages under this statute.”
Deer Valley Industrial Park Development & Lease Co. v. State Ex Rel. Herman (1967)
arizctapp · cites it 6×
“” Common sense, derived from experience, leads this court to conclude that our legislature, by adopting the subject rule of damage, A.R.S. § 12-1122, subsec. A, did not intend that property owners be paid in full for valuable frontage rights, and yet at the same time retain…”
State v. Helm (1959)
ariz · cites it 4×
“Section 12-1122 requires that separate interests in condemned property be separately valuated, the lessees in this case cannot seek apportionment of the $33,000 paid to the McJunkins for the taking of the fee title.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(0) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(A) — 11 cases
City of Phoenix v. Leroy's Liquors, Inc. (1993)
arizctapp
“See A.R.S. § 12-1122(A). The court in Filler determined that construction delay which is so significant that it may affect market value of property may be considered in determining severance damages under this statute.”
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler (1991)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 12-1122 and Construction Delay In its petition, DOT asserts that § 12-1122(A) requires the jury to measure both severance damages and special benefits by applying the fiction that the freeway was completed and fully operational immediately following the taking.”
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan (1987)
ariz
“There is no difference in value of the part taken, whether the city takes the widening strip from the front or the rear.”
Dixon v. City of Phoenix (1992)
arizctapp
“The City responds that, notwithstanding the right of entry agreement, the action is still one in eminent domain.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(A)(1) — 9 cases
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan (1987)
ariz
“There is no difference in value of the part taken, whether the city takes the widening strip from the front or the rear.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(A)(2) — 6 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(A)(3) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Miller v. Filler (1991)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 12-1122 and Construction Delay In its petition, DOT asserts that § 12-1122(A) requires the jury to measure both severance damages and special benefits by applying the fiction that the freeway was completed and fully operational immediately following the taking.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(A)(l) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Ordway v. Buchanan (1987)
ariz
“There is no difference in value of the part taken, whether the city takes the widening strip from the front or the rear.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(B) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1122(C) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.