Hall v. ODOT

Planning to regulate property does not amount to a taking even if the planning might reduce the property's value unless the property owner loses all "economically feasible private uses."

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) appealed a judgment holding its actions amounted to an economic taking. Hall owns a 25-acre property next to the Interstate in Linn County that is only connected to the highway system by an easement known as the Viewcrest I-5 interchange. ODOT planned to close the interchange which would have made the property landlocked. Hall sued ODOT asking for nearly four million in damages because of an economic takings. Hall argued that ODOT's public statements indicating its plan to close the interchange resulted in direct economic damages. At the trial level, ODOT argued that planning to regulate property does not amount to a taking even if the planning might reduce the property's value unless the property owner loses all "economically feasible private uses pending eventual taking for public use." ODOT made a motion for a directed verdict which was denied along with several other legal arguments. The trial court rejected the "denial of all viable use standard" in favor of the "substantial and unreasonable interference with use and enjoyment standard" as the proper test for determining a compensable taking. The Court of Appeals ruled that there was no taking and the trial court erred in not granting ODOT's motion for a directed verdict. Reversed and Remanded.