BROADCASTS.com

b'

This podcast is provided by Ben Glass and Steve Emmert

www.BenGlassReferrals.com - www.Virginia-Appeals.com

\\xa0

Granted Appeal Summary

Case

C. ROBERT JOHNSON, III, ET AL. v. CITY OF SUFFOLK, ET AL.
(Record Number 191563)
From

The Circuit Court for the City of Suffolk; L. Farmer, Judge.

Counsel

L. Steven Emmert (Sykes, Bourdon, Ahern & Levy, P.C.), Joseph T. Waldo and Russell G. Terman (Waldo & Lyle, P.C.) for appellants.
David L. Arnold, D. Rossen S. Greene, and Matthew R. Hull (Pender & Coward, P.C.), and Christopher D. Pomeroy and Paul T. Nyffeler (AquaLaw PLC) for appellees.

Assignment of Error

The trial court erroneously sustained the demurrers, because the declaratory-judgment petition states a facially valid claim for inverse condemnation, and: A. The trial court erroneously based its ruling on federal caselaw interpreting the United States
Constitution, because the oystermen\\u2019s claims are based on the Constitution of Virginia. B. The trial court erroneously ruled that the City and HRSD have the right to pollute the Commonwealth\\u2019s waters and that they need not pay just compensation to the oystermen. In doing so, it erroneously relied on now-obsolete caselaw and erroneously applied that
caselaw.

Assignments of Cross-Error (City of Suffolk)

1. The trial court erred in overruling the demurrers on the ground that an inverse condemnation case will not lie against the City because the City lacks the authority to exercise eminent domain
over the oyster ground leases in this case.

2. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City\\u2019s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because the Appellants failed to allege a public use and
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that their property was taken or damaged for a public use.

3. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument in the City\\u2019s demurrer that the Petition should have been dismissed because oyster ground leases do not guarantee lessees water
of a certain purity or pollution level.

4. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City\\u2019s demurrer that the Petition should be dismissed because whatever taking or damage the Appellants did allege was
due to the state\\u2019s exercise of its police power.

5. The trial court erred in failing to consider the argument raised in the City\\u2019s plea in bar that the Petition should be dismissed as time-barred because the claims are premised on conditions which
have existed continuously since before the three-year statute of limitations.

Assignment of Cross-Error (Hampton Roads Sanitation District)

1. The Circuit Court erred in denying in part HRSD\\u2019s demurrer by finding that HRSD has condemnation authorit

This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.

Real legal help for real people

Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there\\u2019s a problem: The insurance company doesn\\u2019t believe you. \\u201cYou can\\u2019t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you\\u2019re fine.\\u201d

You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don\\u2019t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review.

Get a free consultation