12-1129. Dismissal of condemnation action; litigation expenses
A. If a plaintiff causes a condemnation action under this article to be dismissed without prejudice before payment of the compensation and damages awarded the defendant by the court or jury, the plaintiff shall not initiate any eminent domain proceeding with respect to the same property for the same or a related project for at least two years after the date of the verdict or judgment.
B. The court having jurisdiction of a condemnation action under this article shall award the owner with any right to, title to or interest in the property that is the subject of the action an amount that will reimburse the owner for the owner's reasonable costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees, actually incurred because of the condemnation proceeding if either of the following occurs:
1. The final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the real property by condemnation.
2. The proceeding is abandoned on a motion by the plaintiff.
C. If the proceeding is dismissed on a motion by the plaintiff because the parties have agreed to settle the matter out of court, both parties shall pay their own costs, disbursements and expenses, including reasonable attorney, appraisal and engineering fees unless otherwise specified by the parties in the settlement agreement.
Notes of Decisions
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 15× “The court found that (1) the dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to diligently prosecute was not an adjudication on the merits, the court’s own statements throughout the hearing reflected the lack of a ruling on the merits, and the court refused to revisit the prior ruling of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1129(B) — 1 case
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court found that (1) the dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to diligently prosecute was not an adjudication on the merits, the court’s own statements throughout the hearing reflected the lack of a ruling on the merits, and the court refused to revisit the prior ruling of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1129(B)(1) — 1 case
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court found that (1) the dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to diligently prosecute was not an adjudication on the merits, the court’s own statements throughout the hearing reflected the lack of a ruling on the merits, and the court refused to revisit the prior ruling of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1129(B)(2) — 1 case
Oursland v. Hon mackey/aps (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“The court found that (1) the dismissal under Rule 41(b) for failure to diligently prosecute was not an adjudication on the merits, the court’s own statements throughout the hearing reflected the lack of a ruling on the merits, and the court refused to revisit the prior ruling of…”
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.