Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed orders granting the District partial summary judgment, possession of condemned property, rejection of a subject-matter jurisdiction challenge, and denial of a motion to compel discovery. The court held that the appellants' challenges to the Skyland Shopping Center condemnation concerned the merits rather than subject-matter jurisdiction, and that the record supported the Council's rational determination that the taking served a public purpose through economic development. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's discovery and possession rulings.
Holdings
- The Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the condemnation action; appellants' challenges to the legality, public purpose, or authorization of the taking concerned the merits rather than the court's jurisdictional power.
- The Superior Court properly granted the District partial summary judgment because the record showed that the D.C. Council could rationally have approved the Skyland Act for economic development, defeating appellants' pretext defense.
- The Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellants' motion to compel additional discovery.
- The Superior Court properly granted the District possession of the condemned property.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the condemnation action despite appellants' claims that the Skyland legislation authorized an unconstitutional, pretextual, or otherwise unauthorized taking.
- Whether the District was entitled to partial summary judgment because the record showed that the D.C. Council could rationally have approved the Skyland Act for the public purpose of economic development.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by denying appellants' motion to compel additional discovery.
- Whether the Superior Court abused its discretion by granting the District immediate possession of the condemned property.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (12)
- Franco v. National Capital Revitalization Corp., 930 A.2d 160, 162-175 (D.C. 2007)(followed and applied)
- Franco v. District of Columbia, 3 A.3d 300, 302-303 (D.C. 2010)(background)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219, 228 (D.C. 2011)(applied)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998)(applied)
- Thoubboron v. Ford Motor Co., 809 A.2d 1204, 1215 (D.C. 2002)(applied)
- Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics, 999 A.2d 89, 95 (D.C. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 1001 (2011)(applied)
- Hamilton v. Howard University, 960 A.2d 308, 313 (D.C. 2008)(applied)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 475, 483-488 (2005)(applied)
- Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)(applied)
- Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 242 (1984)(applied)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.