The jury, or court, or referee, if a jury is waived, must hear such legal testimony as may be offered by any of the parties to the proceedings and thereupon must ascertain and assess:
1. The value of the property sought to be condemned and all improvements thereon pertaining to the realty and of each and every separate estate or interest therein. If it consists of different parcels, the value of each parcel and each estate and interest therein shall be separately assessed.\n\n Page No. 5
2. If the property sought to be condemned constitutes only a part of a larger parcel, the damages which 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. If the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, the amount of such damages.
4. If the property is taken or damaged by the state or a public corporation, separately, how much the portion not sought to be condemned and each estate or interest therein will be benefited, if at all, by the construction of the improvement proposed by the plaintiff, and if the benefit shall be equal to the damages assessed under subsections 2 and 3, the owner of the parcel shall be allowed no compensation except the value of the portion taken, but if the benefit shall be less than the damages so assessed the former shall be deducted from the latter and the remainder shall be the only damages allowed in addition to the value of the portion taken.
5. As far as practicable, compensation must be assessed separately for property actually taken and for damages to that which is not taken. \n
Notes of Decisions
Lenertz v. City of Minot N.D., 2019 ND 53 (N.D. 2019).
· cites it 8× “[¶19] Lenertz also argues N.D.C.C. § 32-15-22(3) limits or overrides the district court’s discretion in admitting evidence, and requires a jury to hear legal testimony offered by any of the parties, “[i]f the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the…”
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Morton Cnty., 131 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1964).
· cites it 22× “Subsection 3 of Section 32-15-22 provides a jury shall ascertain and assess the amount of damages where property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement.”
United Power Ass'n v. Heley, 277 N.W.2d 262 (N.D. 1979).
· cites it 8× “" Section 32-15-22 of the North Dakota Century Code has defined the assessment of consequential damages.”
City of Hazelton v. Daugherty, 275 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Section 32-15-22 of the North Dakota Century Code defines the forms of compensation to be awarded in an eminent domain action.”
Sauvageau v. Hjelle, 213 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1973).
· cites it 8× “We are convinced that subsection 2 of § 32-15-22, N.D.C.C., permits an award of damages in a situation of this nature; and that the jury may correctly conclude that the “parcel,” part of which was severed, was the 80-acre tract viewed as part of an entire unit, there being…”
Hager v. City of Devils Lake, 2009 ND 180 (N.D. 2009).
· cites it 2× “e purpose of assessing compensation and damages, the right thereto shall be deemed to have accrued at the date of the taking and its actual value at that date shall be the measure of compensation for all property actually to be taken, and the basis of damages to the property not…”
Wilson v. City of Fargo, 141 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 1966).
· cites it 8× “The majority cites Section 32-15-22(3), N.D.C.C., and construes it to allow damages resulting from a taking for public use, even though no part of the property damaged is actually taken.”
Hultberg v. Hjelle, 286 N.W.2d 448 (N.D. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Section 32-15-22, N.D.C.C., defines the forms of compensation to be awarded in eminent domain proceedings, and reads: “32-15-22.”
City of Devils Lake v. Davis, 480 N.W.2d 720 (N.D. 1992).
· cites it 2× “— For the purpose of assessing compensation and damages, the right thereto shall be deemed to have accrued at the date of the taking and its actual value at that date shall be the measure of compensation for all property actually to be taken, and the basis of damages to the…”
Guerard v. State, 220 N.W.2d 525 (N.D. 1974).
· cites it 4× “" Section 32-15-22, N.D.C.C., provides that the jury or court, if a jury is waived, must hear such legal testimony as may be offered by any of the parties to the proceedings and thereupon must ascertain and assess: .”
Basin Elec. Power Coop. v. Paulson, 289 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1980).
· cites it 4× “The awards here are for different purposes and the trial court, in compliance with Section 32-15-22, N.D.C.C., 2 instructed the jury to treat them separately.”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 32-15-22(2) — 3 cases
Sauvageau v. Hjelle, 213 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1973).
“We are convinced that subsection 2 of § 32-15-22, N.D.C.C., permits an award of damages in a situation of this nature; and that the jury may correctly conclude that the “parcel,” part of which was severed, was the 80-acre tract viewed as part of an entire unit, there being…”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 32-15-22(3) — 7 cases
Lenertz v. City of Minot N.D., 2019 ND 53 (N.D. 2019).
“[¶19] Lenertz also argues N.D.C.C. § 32-15-22(3) limits or overrides the district court’s discretion in admitting evidence, and requires a jury to hear legal testimony offered by any of the parties, “[i]f the property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the…”
N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Morton Cnty., 131 N.W.2d 557 (N.D. 1964).
“Subsection 3 of Section 32-15-22 provides a jury shall ascertain and assess the amount of damages where property, though no part thereof is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement.”
Wilson v. City of Fargo, 141 N.W.2d 727 (N.D. 1966).
“The majority cites Section 32-15-22(3), N.D.C.C., and construes it to allow damages resulting from a taking for public use, even though no part of the property damaged is actually taken.”
Sauvageau v. Hjelle, 213 N.W.2d 381 (N.D. 1973).
“We are convinced that subsection 2 of § 32-15-22, N.D.C.C., permits an award of damages in a situation of this nature; and that the jury may correctly conclude that the “parcel,” part of which was severed, was the 80-acre tract viewed as part of an entire unit, there being…”
— N.D. Cent. Code § 32-15-22(4) — 1 case
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.