In this episode, Kristin Renfro, a California condemnation attorney, joins the show to discuss inverse condemnation and its intersection with tort law. Kristen describes her experience litigating a case involving a catastrophic landslide. She details how inverse condemnation differs from tort law in that it requires no fault—only that a public project caused damage. Kristen explains the legal and scientific challenges of proving causation, including the need for expert geological and geotechnical testimony, and outlines the strategic decisions made during the trial. The conversation also touches on broader implications for property owners, utilities, and constitutional rights, especially in light of California’s progressive stance on public utility liability.

The episode concludes with Renfro's review of a recent trip to see Dead & Company at the Sphere in Las Vegas.

Links:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kditlev/

In this episode, Tom Malapit and Eric Rochford--two Indiana condemnation lawyers--join Bobby to discuss a significant eminent domain case they tried last year in Indiana, which they believe is the largest jury verdict in an Indiana condemnation proceeding.

They detail the challenges of the case, including the initial offer from the school corporation, taking over the case from another firm after a failed mediation, and a critical ruling on the admissibility of a prior family transaction involving the property.

They also describe how they used the condemning authority's own witnesses during cross-examination to support their case and fighting for the property's highest and best use as commercial land despite its present designation as farm land. They also share insights into trial logistics, witness order, judge personality, and the valuable feedback received from the jury after the verdict.

Links:

Tom Malapit & Eric Rochford Webiste and Bios: https://www.eminentattorneys.com/about

A few weeks ago, Bobby was invited to give a presentation to IRWA Chapter 36’s Spring Seminar on the history of Texas’s takings provision—specifically, the evolution of the term “adequate compensation” and what difference there is, if any, between that term and the U.S. Constitution’s use of “just compensation.” This episode is a live recording of that presentation.

Links:

https://irwachapter36.org/

2025 Spring Seminar: https://irwachapter36.org/meetinginfo.php?id=131&ts=1738095773