An attorney from our firm represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company. The pipeline company offered a settlement of $100,000 to place the pipeline beneath the surface in our client’s property. The attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which restricted the pipeline to the following conditions:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Revised construction design
• Allocation of funds to reduce tax implications

Our eminent domain team was able to settle the matter with the pipeline company for $2,193,000.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company.  The pipeline company offered $50,000.  Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Restriction of above ground items
• Indemnification language
• Allocation of funds to reduce tax implications

The matter settled for $287,200.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company.  The pipeline company offered $19,000.  Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Restriction of above ground items
• Fencing to protect livestock
• Right to construct access roads across the easement
• Timber placed nearby for owner’s use

The matter settled for $1,577,400.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company. The pipeline company filed condemnation documents in the Court of Common Pleas. The pipeline company offered $28,000. An evidentiary hearing was held. Property owner rejected offers up to $175,000 and the owners demanded that the pipeline company avoid the property. The pipeline company rerouted the pipeline to avoid the property. The pipeline company agreed to pay the property owner’s reasonable expenses, including attorney fees, as a result of the property owner’s need to defend the property.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company.  The pipeline company offered $18,945.  Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Fencing for the protection of animals
• Allocation of funds to reduce tax implications

The matter settled for $347,000.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company.  The pipeline company offered $9,795.  Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Allocation of funds to reduce tax implications

The matter settled for $460,000.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company.  The pipeline company offered $118,420.  Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Fencing for animal safety
• Monitoring and repair of erosion
• Restriction on above ground items

The Matter settled for $785,000.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing a powerline condemnation with potential harm to a natural spring used for decades for commercial water production.  The electric company offered $14,700.  Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which:

• Preserved the right of damages in the event that construction harmed the spring
• Prohibited herbicides in the vicinity of the spring

The matter settled for $56,500.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company. The pipeline company offered $8,815. Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Restricted access language
• Timber placed for the owner’s use
• Driveway repair

The matter settled for 480,000.

An attorney from our previous partnership represented a property owner facing the threat of eminent domain by a pipeline company. The pipeline company offered $17,225. Our attorney was able to settle the matter with revised language which described:

• A single pipeline
• Revised access language

The matter settled for $390,000.