UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

v.

5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, PAUL L. VOGELSANS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 10.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, CATHERINE E. HENDERSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 10.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, LEWIS L. HOWARD AND TERESA HOWARD, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ELIZABETH TOMAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, EDITH L. SMITH, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ELIZABETH ANTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 3.75 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ENRIQUE VILLA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, DR. ALFRED MARCIA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 2.50 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JOHN R. ROLLING, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JOHN H. JAMES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ANDREW L. CADWELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, RON N. EDDY AND ALMA M. EDDY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, DAN G. MCCORMICK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, G. S. MITCHELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 2.50 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ROBERT J. KELLY AND MADELINE KELLY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ARMA E. ANDON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, C. W. DOANE, A/K/A CLIFFORD W. DOANE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 20.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, VIRGILIO J. BELLO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 10.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, BEN FRIEDMAN AND SARAH FRIEDMAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JOHN KOPELAKIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 5.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, SAM G. RAGLAND, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 1.25 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JESSE BALDWIN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 10.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, JAMES G. VACCARO AND MILDRED R. VACCARO, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 20.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, GORDON ROBERTS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. 10.00 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE COUNTY OF COLLIER, STATE OF FLORIDA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, ALMA SKEGGS AND JOHN SKEGGS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT;

11th Cir. | 1982-04-26

Nos. 81-5021 to 81-5026, 81-5030 to 81-5038, 81-5045 to 81-5050 and 81-5052 to 81-5055

Before VANCE, HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

673 F.2d 1244 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1982) Caution

Cited by 8 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

The court held that the appellants failed to show actual bias in the commission, thus affirming the district court's decision.

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants claimed the eminent domain commission was prejudiced due to hearing numerous prior pro se cases where landowners did not effectively presen…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Eminent Domain Proceedings Just Compensation Pro Se Litigant

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Eminent Domain Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM:

In 1974 the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to acquire approximately 570,000 acres of land in Monroe and Collier Coun ties in Florida for the Big Cypress National Preserve. In 1978 the district court appointed the Big Cypress Land Commission to determine just compensation for property taken in attendant eminent domain proceedings. In addition to compensation trials the Commission holds summary calendar proceedings in which landowners who have not retained counsel can personally contest government appraisals.

Appellants claim that by the time their case came to trial in February 1980 the Commission had become prejudiced by hearing 39 pro se proceedings in which landowners did not effectively present evidence of land values. They request that a new commission be appointed, and their case be retried.

The courts have recognized that under certain circumstances a commission is a useful and proper device for setting compensation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 71A(h). Use of the device is appropriate in a case such as this one, which involves “large areas held by many small landowners, or property too distant for a jury to view the premises.” United States v. Buhler, 254 F. 2d 876, 880 (5th Cir. 1958); accord, Georgia Power Co. v. 138.80 Acres of Land, 596 F. 2d 644, 648 (5th Cir. 1979), vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Georgia Power Co. v. Saunders, 617 F. 2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 936, 101 S.Ct. 1403, 67 L.Ed.2d 372 (1981).1 Because the protection of a jury is not' afforded, the courts must be particularly vigilant to ensure that every precaution is taken to safeguard the rights of individual landowners. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this duty has been slighted.2 The landowners here have failed to show any actual bias, much less bias beyond reasonable possibility of disagreement. See United States v. Certain Parcels of Land Located in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Commonwealth of Virginia, 384 F. 2d 677, 681 (4th Cir. 1967). The decision of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

. Although trial by jury is the customary method of fixing the value of land taken in eminent domain proceedings, there is no constitutional right to a jury determination of compensation. See Georgia Power Co. v. 138.30 Acres of Land, 596 F. 2d 644, 647 (5th Cir. 1979), vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Georgia Power Co. v. Saunders, 617 F. 2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 936, 101 S.Ct. 1403, 67 L.Ed.2d 372 (1981).

. The sum and substance of the case is that the Commission must be biased because it has heard 39 pro se cases in which the awards were not as favorable to the landowners as in three or four prior trials conducted by lawyers. This recitation of numbers proves nothing. The purpose of a commission is to hear all cases for an entire project, see Georgia Power Co., 596 F. 2d at 648, and achieve some uniformity of result, see United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 197, 84 S.Ct. 639, 642, 11 L.Ed.2d 629 (1964).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Bonanno, 568 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1990)

…ard thereon. Thus, it is not unusual for commissions to be utilized as devices to determine just compensation with the right of review for the final determination to a court of competent jurisdiction. See, e.g., United States v. 5.00 Acres of Land, 673 F. 2d 1244 (11th Cir.1982) (Big Cypress Land Commission appointed to determine just compensation in attendant eminent domain proceedings). The procedures set forth in chapter 89-91 are virtually the same as those followed under the Workers’ Compensation Law.…
United States v. 480.00 Acres OF Land, 557 F.3d 1297 (11th Cir. 2009)

…Appellants’ closing, despite the fact that the 1987 sale was in the vicinity of the 1986 comparable on which the Commission relied and was a year closer to the date of valuation. Appellants differentiated their case from United States v. 5.00 Acres, 673 F. 2d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir.1982), which rejected an argument that a Commission was biased because it had heard thirty-nine uncontested cases. Appellants instead compared their case to Gwathmey v. United States, 215 F. 2d 148 (5th Cir.1954) (reversed and remand…

1 / 2
Ala. Power Co. v. 1354.02 Acres, 709 F.2d 666 (11th Cir. 1983)

…served by foregoing trial by jury. Fed.R.Civ.P. 71A(h). We have held that Rule 71A(h) does not offend the right to trial by jury, there being no constitutional right to a jury in an eminent domain action. United States v. 5.00 Acres of Land, Etc., 673 F. 2d 1244 (11th Cir.1982). The court below made appropriate findings that the ends of justice would be served best by appointment of commissioners. Accordingly, this claim is without merit. 2. Compensation for Riparian Rights and Damages Appellant claims…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1964)
Freeman v. Chambly, 450 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1981)
Engle v. Sims, 450 U.S. 936 (U.S. 1981)
Ga. Power Co. v. 138.30 Acres of Land, 617 F.2d 1112 (5th Cir. 1980)
United States v. Buhler, 254 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1958)
Ga. Power Co. v. 138.30 Acres OF Land, 596 F.2d 644 (5th Cir. 1979)
United States v. Certain Parcels OF Land Located IN Fairfax AND Loudoun Counties, 384 F.2d 677 (4th Cir. 1967)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw