Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 6 — Particular Proceedings; part 78B-6-5 — Eminent Domain
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-6-511 (2026)

Compensation and damages -- How assessed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The court, jury, or referee shall hear any legal evidence offered by any of the parties to the proceedings, and determine and assess:
the value of the property sought to be condemned as a whole, including all improvements pertaining to the property; and
the value of each separate interest in the property;
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;
if the property, though no part of it is taken, will be damaged by the construction of the proposed improvement, and the amount of the damages;
separately, how much the portion not sought to be condemned, and each estate or interest in it, will be benefitted, if at all, by the construction of the improvement proposed by the plaintiff , provided that if the benefit is equal to the damages assessed under Subsection (1)(b), the owner of the parcel shall be allowed no compensation except the value of the portion taken; but if the benefit is less than the damages 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;
if the property sought to be condemned consists of water rights or part of a water delivery system or both, and the taking will cause present or future damage to or impairment of the water delivery system not being taken, including impairment of the system's carrying capacity, an amount to compensate for the damage or impairment; and
if land on which crops are growing at the time of service of summons is sought to be condemned, the value that those crops would have had after being harvested, taking into account the expenses that would have been incurred cultivating and harvesting the crops.
In determining the market value of the property before the taking and the market value of the property after the taking to assess damages in partial takings cases as described in Subsection (1)(b), the court, jury, or referee:
may consider everything a willing buyer and a willing seller would consider in determining the market value of the property after the taking; and
may not consider the assessed value on the property tax assessment for the property unless the court determines that the assessed value on the property tax assessment constitutes an admission by a party opponent.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). · cites it 18× “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
UDOT v. Target Corp., 2020 UT 10 (Utah 2020). · cites it 21× “UTAH CODE § 78B-6-511(1)(b). And we explain that the term “improvement,” as originally understood and read in the context of the governing statute, encompasses any portions of an amelioration of land that advances the “purpose” for which the condemning authority takes the land…”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Target Corp., 2018 UT App 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “We note simply that we consider any such claim on UDOT's part-that some of the items included as causes of Claimants' loss of visibility damages may not be part of the Interchange-to be inadequately briefed and developed.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 78B-6-511(2) (2008). In cases where the remainder property will be bene-fitted by the construction of the improvement, the statute requires that the amount of the benefit must be subtracted from the severance compensation.”
UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Co., 2020 UT 35 (Utah 2020). · cites it 5× “Citing Utah Code sections 78B-6-511 and -512, the district court held that the Boggess property had to be valued as of the date of the taking, and based only on what a willing buyer and seller would have known at that time.”
UDOT v. LEJ Investments, 2018 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “LEJ Investments Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-511(1) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Lej Invs. LLC, 437 P.3d 569 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Because evidence was presented at trial showing that the development the court considered would have happened regardless of the construction of the MVC, we conclude that the court did not misapply the project-influence rule.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. TBT Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 2015 UT App 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-511(4) (LexisNexis 2008); Mendonca, 375 P.”
UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Co., 2025 UT App 58 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “See Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1)(a), (b), (d). Although UDOT is correct, it does not follow that the lack of such distinctions in the statute constitutes an abandonment of Hempstead.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Kmart Corp., 2018 UT 54 (Utah 2018). · cites it 2× “In our decision on appeal, we held that under Utah Code section 78B-6-511 (Just Compensation Statute) courts are required to separately determine the value of a condemnation award for each affected property owner's property.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1) — 3 cases
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
UDOT v. LEJ Investments, 2018 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “LEJ Investments Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-511(1) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Lej Invs. LLC, 437 P.3d 569 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “Because evidence was presented at trial showing that the development the court considered would have happened regardless of the construction of the MVC, we conclude that the court did not misapply the project-influence rule.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1)(a) — 2 cases
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Co., 2025 UT App 58 (Utah Ct. App. 2025). “See Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1)(a), (b), (d). Although UDOT is correct, it does not follow that the lack of such distinctions in the statute constitutes an abandonment of Hempstead.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1)(a)(b) — 1 case
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1)(b) — 5 cases
UDOT v. Target Corp., 2020 UT 10 (Utah 2020). “UTAH CODE § 78B-6-511(1)(b). And we explain that the term “improvement,” as originally understood and read in the context of the governing statute, encompasses any portions of an amelioration of land that advances the “purpose” for which the condemning authority takes the land…”
UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Co., 2020 UT 35 (Utah 2020). “Citing Utah Code sections 78B-6-511 and -512, the district court held that the Boggess property had to be valued as of the date of the taking, and based only on what a willing buyer and seller would have known at that time.”
UDOT v. LEJ Investments, 2018 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “LEJ Investments Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-511(1) (LexisNexis Supp.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Lej Invs. LLC, 437 P.3d 569 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “Because evidence was presented at trial showing that the development the court considered would have happened regardless of the construction of the MVC, we conclude that the court did not misapply the project-influence rule.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(1)(c) — 1 case
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(2) — 3 cases
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Target Corp., 2018 UT App 24 (Utah Ct. App. 2018). “We note simply that we consider any such claim on UDOT's part-that some of the items included as causes of Claimants' loss of visibility damages may not be part of the Interchange-to be inadequately briefed and developed.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011). “§ 78B-6-511(2) (2008). In cases where the remainder property will be bene-fitted by the construction of the improvement, the statute requires that the amount of the benefit must be subtracted from the severance compensation.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. FPA West Point, LLC, 304 P.3d 810 (Utah 2012). “Section 78B-6-511 contains additional provisions to guide the court in calculating compensation and damages in condemnation proceedings, but these provisions are not directly relevant to the issue presented to us in this interlocutory appeal.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(2)(a) — 1 case
UDOT v. Boggess-Draper Co., 2020 UT 35 (Utah 2020). “Citing Utah Code sections 78B-6-511 and -512, the district court held that the Boggess property had to be valued as of the date of the taking, and based only on what a willing buyer and seller would have known at that time.”
— Utah Code § 78B-6-511(4) — 2 cases
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Admiral Beverage Corp., 275 P.3d 208 (Utah 2011). “§ 78B-6-511(2) (2008). In cases where the remainder property will be bene-fitted by the construction of the improvement, the statute requires that the amount of the benefit must be subtracted from the severance compensation.”
Utah Dep't of Transp. v. TBT Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 2015 UT App 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). “See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-511(4) (LexisNexis 2008); Mendonca, 375 P.”
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.