- PROGRAMS
- PUBLICATIONSCloseBack
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- RESOURCE HUBCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- PROGRAMS
- PUBLICATIONSCloseBack
- SUBSCRIPTIONS
- RESOURCE HUBCloseBack
- ABOUT US
- You must be a paid subscriber to access the downloads
-
List of Forms by Chapter - Chapter 1 — The Power of Eminent Domain: Introduction and Overview
- I. [1.1] Overview
- II. [1.2] The Power, Its Source, and Its Limitations
- III. [1.3] The 2007 Illinois Eminent Domain Act
-
IV. Authority To Exercise the Power of Eminent Domain - V. The Exercise of the Power of Eminent Domain: A Typical Eminent Domain Action
- [1.7] Prerequisites to Filing the Complaint
- [1.8] Authority, Public Purpose, and Necessity
- [1.9] Negotiation with Property Owner
- Filing the Complaint
- [1.10] Contents of the Complaint
- [1.11] Public Utilities
- [1.12] Common Elements
- [1.13] Service of Process
- [1.14] Lis Pendens
- [1.15] Answer and Counterclaim
- [1.16] Traverse — Attacks on the Authority To Condemn
- [1.17] Authority, Public Purpose, and Necessity
- [1.18] Legal Description
- [1.19] Attempt To Agree on Compensation
- [1.20] Illinois Commerce Commission Approval
- [1.21] Discovery
- [1.22] Discovery of Facts or Documents
- [1.23] Discovery of Witnesses
- [1.24] Trial
- [1.25] Motions in Limine
- [1.26] View of the Property
- [1.27] Testimony and Evidence
- [1.28] Jury Instructions
- [1.29] Abandonment
- [1.30] Posttrial
- [1.31] Judgment Order
- [1.32] Deposit
- [1.33] Motion To Vest Title
- [1.34] Withdrawing the Deposit
- [1.35] Property Taxes
- VI. [1.36] Use of Eminent Domain for Urban Redevelopment
- VII. [1.37] Quick-Take
- VIII. [1.38] Seizure of Property by the State in Case of Natural Disaster or Other Emergency
- IX. [1.39] Relocation
- Chapter 2 — Initial Procedures and Pleadings of the State and Other Condemning Bodies
- I. Introduction
- II. Precondemning Procedure
- [2.3] Preliminary Considerations
- [2.4] Hiring Appraisers
- [2.5] Personal Inspection of the Property
- [2.6] Identifying the Parties
- [2.7] Compliance with Federal and State Prerequisites — Environmental, Landmark Protection, Relocation, and Farmland Preservation Statutes
- [2.8] Surveys
- [2.9] Environmental Assessment
- [2.10] Owner’s Due-Process Rights Prior to Site Selection or Government’s Enactment of Condemnation Authority
- [2.11] Identifying the Occupants
- [2.12] Special Parties — Active Duty Military Personnel and Their Dependents
- [2.13] Relocation Reimbursement
- [2.14] Relocation Coordinator
- [2.15] Sixty-Day Notice Letter for State Agencies
- [2.16] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
- Conditions Precedent to Filing
- [2.17] Authority and Delegation of Authority To Implement Condemnation
- [2.18] Successive Condemnations
- [2.19] Prerequisites for New Quick-Take Authority
- [2.20] Quick-Take — What Is a Formally Adopted Schedule or Plan of Operation?
- [2.21] Availability of Funds Not Condition Precedent to Filing Petition
- [2.22] Final Plans of Project Not Condition Precedent to Filing Petition; Showing Necessity for the Take
- [2.23] Prior Notice Not Condition Precedent to Filing Petition — Other than by State Agencies
- [2.24] Delay in Instituting or Prosecuting Condemnation Action Not Fatal
- [2.25] Approval of Illinois Commerce Commission for Acquisition of Public Utility Property
- [2.26] Special Considerations — Railroad Property
- [2.27] Condemnation for Use by Another Governmental Entity — Intergovernmental Cooperation
- [2.28] Condemnation of Property of Another Public Entity — Municipal Acquisition of Public Property
- [2.29] Preservation of Status Quo While Condemnation Is Pending
- [2.30] Notice of Right-of-Way Designation and Advance Acquisition
- [2.31] Prefiling Contacts with the Owner
- [2.32] Records of Conversations
- [2.33] Prefiling Inspection
- Attempt To Agree as to Compensation
- [2.34] Attempt To Agree a Prerequisite
- [2.35] Condemnation Following Unsuccessful Negotiations by the Expected Developer
- [2.36] Who May Submit the Condemnor’s Offer?
- [2.37] Testing the Sufficiency of the Attempt
- [2.38] Form Indicating Attempt To Agree
- [2.39] Ethical Considerations — Unrepresented or Represented Defendant
- [2.40] Terminating the Negotiations
- [2.41] Waiver
- [2.42] Multiple Owners, Incompetents, and Nonresidents
- [2.43] Standards for Finding an Attempt To Agree
- [2.44] Good-Faith Offer — Reasonableness of the Amount
- [2.45] Successful Negotiations — Acquisition by Agreement
- [2.46] Voluntary Conveyance
- [2.47] Alternate Acquisition by Purchase of Mortgage or Other Lien Rights
- [2.48] Statements by Public Officials — Are They Binding?
- III. Complaint for Condemnation
- [2.49] Source and Purpose
- [2.50] Elements of the Complaint for Condemnation
- [2.51] Name in Which the Action Is Brought
- [2.52] Necessary Parties Defendant
- [2.53] Unknown Owners
- [2.54] Statement of Authority
- [2.55] Statement of Purpose
- [2.56] Statement of Necessity
- [2.57] Necessity — Replacement Property
- [2.58] Failure To Agree on Compensation
- [2.59] Description of Property Sought
- [2.60] Description of Interest Sought
- [2.61] Jury Demand
- [2.62] Prayer for Relief
- [2.63] Summons
- [2.64] Service by Publication
- [2.65] Service of Summons; Special Process Servers
- [2.66] Excusing Service of Complaint for Condemnation
- [2.67] Motions for Appointment of Guardians ad Litem
- [2.68] Lis Pendens Notice
- [2.69] Amendments to the Complaint for Condemnation
- [2.70] Abandonment — Condemnor’s Dismissal of the Complaint
- [2.71] Immediate Right of Entry by Necessity
- IV. Appendix
- Chapter 3 — Pleadings and Procedures by the Condemnee
- I. [3.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [3.2] Initial Considerations
- III. [3.3] Early Discovery
- IV. Traverse and Motion To Dismiss
- [3.4] Purpose
- [3.5] Time of Filing
- [3.6] Grounds
- [3.7] Necessity
- [3.8] Public Purpose
- [3.9] Bona Fide Attempt To Agree
- [3.10] Condemnor’s Authority
- [3.11] Property Subject to Condemnation
- [3.12] Proper Description
- [3.13] When Traverse Does Not Lie
- [3.14] Trial of a Traverse
- [3.15] If the Traverse Is Denied
- [3.16] If the Traverse Is Granted
- V. [3.17] Counterclaim
- VI. [3.18] Right To Open and Close
- VII. [3.19] View of Premises
- VIII. [3.20] Later Motions
- IX. [3.21] Significant Decisions
- X. [3.22] Final Concerns
- XI. Appendix — Forms
- Chapter 4 — Quick-Take
- I. [4.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [4.2] Purpose of Quick-Take
- III. Who Has Quick-Take Powers?
- IV. How Is Quick-Take Commenced?
- [4.6] Time for Filing of Motion
- [4.7] Contents of Motion
- [4.8] Setting the Hearing
- [4.9] Service of Motion and Notice of Hearing
- [4.10] Necessary Proofs at Quick-Take Hearing
- [4.11] Plaintiff’s Right To Acquire the Property by Condemnation
- [4.12] Plaintiff Has Authority To Acquire the Property by Condemnation
- [4.13] The Property Is Subject to the Right or Authority of Condemnation
- [4.14] The Right Is Being Exercised Properly
- [4.15] Necessity for Use of Quick-Take Procedures
- [4.16] Amount of Preliminary Just Compensation
- V. [4.17] Order Fixing Preliminary Just Compensation
- VI. [4.18] Deposit of Funds and Vesting of Title
- VII. [4.19] Withdrawal of Preliminary Just Compensation
- VIII. Ancillary Issues
- IX. Appeals
- X. Subsequent Proceedings
- XI. Sample Pleadings and Documents
- [4.30] Sample Motion for Immediate Vesting of Title
- [4.31] Sample Publication Notice
- [4.32] Sample Order Setting Hearing on Motion for Immediate Vesting of Title
- [4.33] Sample Order Fixing Preliminary Just Compensation
- [4.34] Sample Treasurer’s Receipt
- [4.35] Sample Order Vesting Title
- [4.36] Sample Motion To Withdraw Preliminary Just Compensation
- [4.37] Sample Order Authorizing Withdrawal of Preliminary Just Compensation
- Chapter 5 — Eminent Domain Proceedings by Government Authorities Other Than the State
- I. [5.1] Introduction
- II. Preliminary Considerations
- [5.2] The Statute Must Be Followed to the Letter of the Law
- [5.3] Both the Public Body and the Landowner Should Adopt a Plan
- [5.4] The Condemnor’s Plan
- [5.5] Condemnation May Be Abandoned at Any Time Prior to Possession
- [5.6] How Does the Public Body Get “Quick-Take”?
- [5.7] The Condemnee’s Plan
- [5.8] Should the Owner Object or Support the Condemnation?
- [5.9] What Should the Owner Consider?
- Both Sides Should Consider the Same Issues
- [5.10] General Considerations
- [5.11] Zoning Considerations
- If the Owners Oppose the Project
- [5.12] Start Early
- [5.13] Seek Political and Legislative Support for or Against Quick-Take
- [5.14] Should the Condemnor or Condemnees Seek Early Resolution of the Condemnation Action?
- [5.15] Complaint To Condemn
- [5.16] Jury Issues
- [5.17] Testifying at Trial
- III. Issues for Both Sides To Consider in the Prosecution or Defense of a Condemnation
- [5.18] A Correct Legal Description
- [5.19] An Incorrect Legal Description
- [5.20] Slight Error
- Large Error
- [5.21] Not in the District
- [5.22] Exceptions to the Within the District Rule
- [5.23] Title
- [5.24] Later Date from a Title Company
- [5.25] Federal Procedures
- [5.26] Discovery
- [5.27] Depositions
- [5.28] Pictures
- [5.29] Documents
- [5.30] Motions in Limine
- [5.31] Motions for Summary Judgment
- [5.32] The View
- [5.33] A Traverse Could End the Condemnation
- [5.34] Prosecution or Defense of a Traverse
- [5.35] The Condemnation Resolution
- [5.36] Failure To Follow the Law Will Lead to Dismissal
- IV. Transferring Property from One Private Owner to Another by Condemnation
- V. Inverse Condemnation
- VI. [5.44] Other Condemnation Issues
- VII. [5.52] The Future of Condemnation in Illinois
- VIII. [5.53] Conclusion
- Chapter 6 — Pretrial Procedure
- I. [6.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. Initial Preparation
- [6.2] Owner’s Attorney
- [6.3] Traverse and Motion To Dismiss
- [6.4] Owner’s Acquisition
- [6.5] Property Uses
- [6.6] Documents, History, and Experts
- [6.7] Offers To Purchase
- [6.8] Other Litigation, Tax Assessment, or Appraisal
- [6.9] Owner’s Plans for the Property
- [6.10] Owner’s Offer To Sell the Property
- [6.11] Materials Received from Condemning Authority; Sample Notice To Produce at Quick-Take
- [6.12] Sales of Properties in Area
- [6.13] Leasehold Interests or Other Encumbrances
- [6.14] Environmental Contamination
- [6.15] Precondemnation Offer
- [6.16] In Summary
- [6.17] Condemnor’s Attorney
- [6.18] Determining the Types of Opinion Witnesses Needed
- [6.19] Factors in Selecting a Valuation Consultant or Witness
- III. Quick-Take Proceedings
- IV. Discovery
- V. Pretrial Motions and Issues
- [6.29] Issues of Title
- [6.30] New Valuation Date
- [6.31] Leasehold Interest
- [6.32] Damage to the Remainder
- [6.33] Bill of Particulars
- [6.34] Inspection of Real Estate; Sample Agreed Protective Order
- [6.35] Motion in Limine
- [6.36] Case Management Conference
- [6.37] Offers To Settle Before Trial
- [6.38] Pretrial Appeals
- Chapter 7 — Valuation of Property in Eminent Domain
- I. Introduction
- II. [7.6] Use of Experts To Prove Valuation Issues
- III. Valuation in Complete Acquisitions
- Just Compensation
- [7.12] Just Compensation as Fair Cash Market Value
- [7.13] Date of Valuation
- Highest and Best Use
- [7.14] Definitions
- [7.15] Reasonable Probability of Rezoning
- [7.16] Unit Rule
- [7.17] Partial Takings
- [7.18] Unit Rule and Expert Cross-Examination
- Other Aspects of Just Compensation
- [7.19] Interest as Just Compensation
- [7.20] Attorneys’ Fees and Litigation Costs
- [7.21] Relocation Assistance
- Fair Cash Market Value
- [7.22] Determining Fair Cash Market Value
- [7.23] Market or Comparable-Sales Approach
- [7.24] Cost Approach
- [7.25] Income Approach
- [7.26] Elements Excluded from Fair Cash Market Value
- [7.27] Appreciation or Depreciation Caused by Project
- [7.28] Illegal Use
- [7.29] Business Done on Property
- [7.30] Cost of Moving
- [7.31] Taxation
- [7.32] Replacement Costs
- [7.33] Existing Right-of-Way
- [7.34] Environmental Issues
- [7.35] Minerals, Timber, and Farm Property
- [7.36] Subdivision Property
- [7.37] Billboards
- [7.38] Special-Use Property
- IV. Valuation in Partial Acquisitions
- V. Valuation in Easement Acquisitions
- Chapter 8 — Trial Procedure and Technique
- I. Trial Advocacy in Eminent Domain Cases
- II. General Procedural Rules
- III. Jury
- IV. [8.10] Opening Statement — General Theory
- V. Jury View of Property
- VI. [8.15] Collateral Evidence
- VII. [8.16] Comparable-Sales Evidence — General Rules
- VIII. [8.17] Voluntary Transactions for Cash
- IX. [8.21] Similarity
- X. Purchase Price of the Subject Property
- XI. [8.32] Wilson v. Clark and Its Effect on Admission of Comparable-Sales Evidence
- XII. [8.33] Conclusion Regarding Sales Evidence
- XIII. Demonstrative Evidence — Maps, Plats, and Photographs
- XIV. Presenting Valuation Witnesses
- XV. [8.40] Right To Open and Close
- XVI. Jury Instructions
- XVII. [8.47] Closing Argument
- Chapter 9 — Mandamus and Inverse Condemnation
- Chapter 10 — Leasehold Damages and Awards in Eminent Domain
- I. Introduction
- II. The Parties
- III. The Condemnation Proceeding
- [10.7] Complete Taking
- [10.8] Partial Taking
- [10.9] Valuation of Leasehold — Two Methods
- [10.10] Apportionment as Part of the Jury Trial
- [10.11] Posttrial Apportionment Hearing
- Evidence — Valuation of Leasehold
- [10.12] Burden of Proof
- [10.13] Options and Verbal Leases
- [10.14] Permanent Improvements
- [10.15] Unit Rule for Improvements
- [10.16] Bonus Value
- [10.17] Valuation Witnesses
- [10.18] Valuation Testimony in Separate Apportionment Proceeding
- [10.19] Comparable Leasehold Valuation
- [10.20] Consequential Losses
- IV. [10.21] Effect of Eminent Domain Act on Leasehold Damages and Awards
- V. [10.22] Conclusion
- VI. Appendix — Sample Forms
- Automatic Termination Clauses
- [10.23] Condemnation Clause
- [10.24] Compensation Clause
- Condemnation Clauses
- [10.25] Total Condemnation Clause
- [10.26] Partial Condemnation Clause
- [10.27] Sixty-Day Letter (To Be Sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested)
- [10.28] Tenant’s Waiver of Lease
- [10.29] Cross-Complaint
- [10.30] Motion for Separate Verdict
- [10.31] Motion for Apportionment of Condemnation Award
- Chapter 11 — Federal Eminent Domain Practice
- I. [11.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. [11.2] Federal Power To Condemn
- [11.3] Purpose
- [11.4] What Constitutes a Taking
- [11.5] Declaration of Taking Act
- [11.6] Inverse Condemnation
- [11.7] Temporary Takings
- [11.8] Consequential Damages When No Property Is Taken
- [11.9] When Power Is Exercised
- [11.10] Federal Authorities Having Power To Condemn
- [11.11] Governing Law
- [11.12] Federal Policy on Real Property Acquisition and Use of Federal Funds — Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
- Limitations on Power of Eminent Domain
- [11.13] Just Compensation
- [11.14] Public Use
- [11.15] Necessity and Expediency of Taking
- III. Valuation and Damages
- [11.16] Rules of Just Compensation
- [11.17] Measure of Compensation
- [11.18] Severance Damages
- [11.19] General Benefits and Special Benefits
- [11.20] Noncompensable Elements
- Evidence of Value
- [11.21] Expert Evidence To Determine Just Compensation: Appraisal
- [11.22] Highest and Best Use
- [11.23] Comparable Sales
- [11.24] Zoning Restrictions
- [11.25] Prior Sales
- [11.26] Income Approach and Cost Approach
- [11.27] Tax Assessments
- [11.28] Offers
- [11.29] Separate Values of Improvements
- [11.30] Prices Paid by Condemnor
- IV. [11.31] Procedure in Federal Condemnation
- [11.32] Jurisdiction and Venue
- [11.33] Joinder of Properties
- [11.34] Complaint
- [11.35] Process
- [11.36] Appearance or Answer
- [11.37] Objections and Defenses
- [11.38] Amendment of Pleadings, Substitution of Parties, and Dismissal
- [11.39] Burden of Proof
- [11.40] Discovery
- [11.41] Methods and Conduct of Trial
- [11.42] Trial by Tribunal of Issue of Just Compensation
- [11.43] Trial by Jury of Issue of Just Compensation
- [11.44] Trial by Commission of Issue of Just Compensation
- [11.45] Trial by District Court of All Other Issues
- [11.46] Court Costs
- [11.47] Equal Access to Justice Act
- [11.48] Costs Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §4654(a)
- [11.49] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 Costs
- [11.50] Abandonment
- V. Inverse Condemnation — Remedies
- VI. [11.55] Relocation Payments: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
- VII. Revestments, Exchanges, and Disposals
- VIII. Appendix — Sample Forms
- Forms Relating to Declaration of Taking
- [11.65] Declaration of Taking
- [11.66] Petition for Distribution of Deposit
- [11.67] Order for Distribution
- [11.68] Petition of Owners for Payment of Deposit for Taxes, for Lien, and to Owners
- [11.69] Complaint in Condemnation
- [11.70] Notice of Condemnation
- [11.71] Answer to Complaint
- [11.72] Appearance
- Chapter 12 — Environmental Law Issues in Eminent Domain Litigation
- I. Introduction
- II. [12.3] Environmental Laws That May Impose Liabilities
- [12.4] Federal and State Superfund Laws
- [12.5] Liabilities Under CERCLA
- [12.6] Extent of Financial Liability Under CERCLA
- [12.7] Private Cost Recovery Actions Under CERCLA
- [12.8] Defenses to Liability Under CERCLA
- [12.9] Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- [12.10] Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Underground Storage Tank Regulation
- [12.11] Financial Responsibility Requirements and Illinois Underground Storage Tank Fund
- [12.12] Toxic Substances Control Act
- [12.13] Clean Air Act
- [12.14] Clean Water Act
- III. [12.15] Environmental Laws That Can Constrain Development of Property
- [12.16] Floodplain and Floodway Regulation
- [12.17] National Flood Insurance Act
- [12.18] Other Federal Statutes
- [12.19] State Regulation of Floodplains and Floodways
- [12.20] Local Regulation of Floodplains and Floodways
- [12.21] Wetlands Regulation
- [12.22] National Environmental Policy Act
- [12.23] Endangered Species Act
- [12.24] Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
- IV. Discovery Issues — Right To Inspect Property
- V. Evidentiary Issues
- [12.29] Highest and Best Use
- [12.30] Evidence of Environmental Conditions Affecting Highest and Best Use
- [12.31] Evidence of Costs Incurred To Alleviate or Minimize Environmental Conditions
- [12.32] Highest and Best Use Dependent on Government Action
- [12.33] Effect of Environmental Conditions on Use of Comparable Sales; General Rules of Comparable-Sales Approach
- [12.34] Sales of Properties Equally Affected by Environmental Conditions
- [12.35] Use of Estimated Costs To Place Properties on Equal Footing
- [12.36] Comparable Sales with Dissimilar Environmental Conditions
- [12.37] Admission of Substandard or Illegal Condition
- [12.38] Admission of Demonstrative Evidence in Proving Environmental Conditions
- [12.39] Plats and Plans
- [12.40] Prefiling Plans for Development
- [12.41] Post-Filing Plats or Development Plans
- [12.42] Photographs
- [12.43] Contour Maps and Wetland Delineations
- [12.44] Public Records
- [12.45] Appraisal Standards
- Chapter 13 — Appeals
- I. [13.1] Scope of Chapter
- II. Preliminary Considerations
- III. [13.6] No Error vs. Error
- IV. Additional Considerations
- V. [13.14] Particular Types of Appeals
- Interlocutory Appeals
- [13.15] Appeal from Final Judgment Not Disposing of Entire Proceeding
- [13.16] Interlocutory Appeal as of Right
- [13.17] Interlocutory Appeal by Permission
- [13.18] Appeal from Order Relating to Traverse and Motion To Dismiss
- [13.19] Appeal from Findings as to Rights of Parties
- [13.20] Appeal from Order Granting New Trial
- [13.21] Appeal from Consent Judgment
- VI. [13.22] Appeal to Illinois Supreme Court
- VII. [13.26] Costs, Expenses, and Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees
- VIII. [13.27] Conclusion
- Lindsay S.C. Brinton
Lindsay S.C. Brinton
Lindsay S.C. Brinton is a Partner at Lewis Rice LLC in St. Louis, where she focuses on litigation. She is a member of the Missouri Bar and the United States Court of Federal Claims, and she is admitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Ms. Brinton received her bachelor’s degree magna cum laude and her J.D. from the University of Missouri — Columbia.
- T. Hunter Brown
T. Hunter Brown
T. Hunter Brown is an associate at Lewis Rice LLC in St. Louis, where he focuses on creditor’s rights and commercial litigation. He is a member of the Commercial Receivers Association and the Emerging Leader’s Network and a Board member of Seed St. Louis. Mr. Brown received his B.A. from Southern Methodist University, where he was a President’s Scholar and the 2011 McLemore Scholar, and his J.D. cum laude from the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, where he was on the Dean’s List and won the Outstanding Advocate Award and the Award for Excellence in Oral Advocacy.
- John W. Damisch
John W. Damisch
John W. Damisch is a Partner at Damisch & Damisch Ltd. in Chicago, where he focuses on civil trial litigation. He is a former Illinois State Bar Association Assembly member, chairs the ISBA Agricultural Law Section Council, and is a Diamond Fellow. He is also a past Board Member of the Illinois Bar Foundation, where he helped secure unused state farm legal assistance funds for productive use by the Foundation. He has held leadership positions in the United Way, school parent organizations, state and local government boards, scouting initiatives, churches, 4-H and farming activities, and several banks. Mr. Damisch received his J.D. from the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
- Richard F. Friedman
Richard F. Friedman
Richard F. Friedman is a Partner atNeal & Leroy, LLC, in Chicago, where he concentrates his practice in eminent domain, municipal law, and historic preservation. Friedman also teaches historic preservation law at the University of Chicago Law School and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He earned his B.S. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.
- Michele S. Gonzales
Michele S. Gonzales
Michele S. Gonzalesis a Partner at Elle Law Group, LLC, in Oak Park, where she devotes her practice to eminent domain and complex commercial litigation. She is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association. Ms. Gonzales received her B.A. from the University of Chicago and her J.D. from the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
- Gabriela C. Herrera
Gabriela C. Herrera
Gabriela C. Herrera is an associate at Neal & Leroy, LLC, in Chicago, where she concentrates her practice in real estate transactions and finance, zoning, development and land use, and eminent domain/condemnation. Herrera is a member of the Chicago Bar Association and the Hispanic Lawyers of Illinois. She earned her B.A. magna cum laude from Loras College and her J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, where she was a member of the Moot Court Honor Society and on the Dean’s Honor List.
- Brian R. Kalb
Brian R. Kalb
Brian R. Kalb is a Partner at Byron Carlson Petri & Kalb, LLC, in Edwardsville, where he focuses on real estate and commercial litigation and agriculture law. He is a member of the Illinois State and Missouri Bar Associations. He was a Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael A. Wolff of the Missouri Supreme Court (2001 – 2002), and he was on the Public Interest Law Initiative Pro Bono Volunteer Honor Roll in 2020. Mr. Kalb received his J.D. summa cum laude from the the Southern Illinois University School of Law.
- Meghan S. Largent
Meghan S. Largent
Meghan S. Largent is a Member of Lewis Rice LLC in St. Louis, where she focuses on federal takings, eminent domain, and land valuation. She was listed on Missouri Lawyers Media “The POWER List: Commercial & Consumer Litigation 2022, 2023,” was a Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2014 – 2016, and was a Presenter on “Issues in Eminent Domain that Invite Ethical Mistakes: Staying on the Straight and Narrow” at the ALI-CLE 2019 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. Ms. Largent received her Bachelor of Journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia and her J.D. from the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law.
- Christopher J. Murdoch
Christopher J. Murdoch
Christopher J. Murdoch is a Partner at Emry Murdoch LLC in Chicago, where he focuses his practice on commercial litigation, insurance coverage, and eminent domain. He is a member of the American Bar Association and is a Special Assistant Attorney General. Murdoch received his B.A. from Georgetown University and his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School.
- Elisha D. Sanders
Elisha D. Sanders
Elisha D. Sanders is a Partner at Sanders & Twomey, LLC, in Marion, where she focuses her practice on eminent domain, real estate, estate planning and administration, and business and municipal law. She is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Law Office Management & Economics and a member of the Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Character & Fitness. Ms. Sanders received her B.S./B.A. from Southeast Missouri State University and her J.D. from the Southern Illinois University School of Law.
- Mark J. Steger
Mark J. Steger
Mark J. Steger is Senior Counsel at Clark Hill PLC in Chicago, where he focuses on environmental law. He was named a Leading Lawyer in 2023. Mr. Steger received his B.S. and his M.S. from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and his J.D. from the Seattle University School of Law.
- Casey L. Twomey
Casey L. Twomey
Casey L. Twomeyis a founding member at Sanders & Twomey, LLC, in Marion, where she focuses on probate, estate planning, real estate, business, and eminent domain. She has been selected as a Leading Lawyers’ Emerging Lawyer (2017, 2018). She is a member of the Illinois State Bar Association and a past President of the Jackson County Bar Association. Ms. Twomey received her B.A. cum laude from Southern Illinois University and her J.D. from the Southern Illinois University School of Law.
- Joseph B. VanFleet
Joseph B. VanFleet
Joseph B. VanFleet is a Managing Partner at Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC in Peoria, where he concentrates his practice in business litigation. He is a member of the American and Illinois State Bar Associations and the American Inns of Court. Mr. VanFleet received his B.S. with high honors from the University of Illinois and his J.D. from the University of Illinois College of Law.
Eminent Domain Practice 2024 Edition
An IICLE® Online Library subscription is required to view this content. For more information or to subscribe, click here.
Free monthly e-updates in 15 practice areas