Spesia & Taylor

Attorneys at Law

(815) 726-4311
  • History
  • Attorneys
    • James C. Byrne
    • John M. Spesia
    • Christian G. Spesia
    • Jeffrey S. Taylor
    • Michael R. Stiff
    • Jacob E. Gancarczyk
    • Michael A. Santschi
    • E. Kent Ayers
    • Thomas M. Ewert
    • Kent F. Slater
    • Haley G. Peters
    • Aly N. Harms
    • Alexander J. Boyd
  • Practice Areas
    • Personal Injury
    • Medical Malpractice
    • Eminent Domain
    • Employment & Civil Rights
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Real Estate & Zoning
    • Energy & Utilities
    • School Law
    • Municipal Law
    • Appellate Practice
  • News & Cases
  • Testimonials
  • Philanthropy
  • Contact
  • Home
You are here: Home / Eminent Domain / The Eminent Domain Act’s Rebuttable Presumption – Section 735 ILCS 30/5-5-5(c)

The Eminent Domain Act’s Rebuttable Presumption – Section 735 ILCS 30/5-5-5(c)

October 30, 2018

Under the Eminent Domain Act (“Act”) a utility company who receives a certificate or finding of public convenience and necessity from the Illinois Commerce Commission enjoys a rebuttable presumption that “acquisition of that property [being condemned] is (i) primarily for the benefit, use, or enjoyment of the public and (ii) necessary for a public purpose.” 735 ILCS 30/5-5-5(c). This article will briefly discuss the recent decisions from the Fourth District Appellate Court interpreting this provision.

In Enbridge Energy (Illinois), L.L.C. v. Kuerth (“Kuerth I”), 2018 IL App (4th) 150519, landowners filed a traverse and motion to dismiss challenging a utility company’s (the “condemnor”) ability to condemn their property. The Fourth District Appellate held that pursuant to Section 5-5-5(c) of the Act, the condemnor “enjoyed the rebuttable presumptions that its interests in landowners respective tracts of land were (1) primarily for the benefit, use, or enjoyment of the public; and (2) necessary for a public purpose.” Kuerth I at ¶164. The Fourth District found that the Illinois Commerce Commission’s (“ICC”) findings were “worthy of a strong presumption” because of the ICC’s experience and expertise in resolving technical issues that come before it including construction of utilities in Illinois. Thus, the Fourth District concluded that a landowner who files a traverse challenging public use and public necessity has the burden to present “clear and convincing evidence” to rebut the presumptions afforded under the Act. Id. ¶174. The court remanded the case back to the trial court to afford the landowners the opportunity to rebut the presumptions.

In a subsequent decision, the Fourth District Appellate Court again addressed the presumptions under Section 5-5-5(c) of the Act in Enbridge Energy (Illinois), L.L.C. v. Kuerth (“Kuerth II”), 2018 IL App (4th) 150519-B. In Kuerth II, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court’s denial of the landowners’ traverses on remand. On remand the landowners argued that a private company’s involvement in the utility project was clear and convincing evidence that the project was not primarily for the benefit, use, or enjoyment under Section 5-5-5(c) of the Act. The Fourth District disagreed and found that a company’s involvement was not relevant in rebutting the presumptions under the Act because the legislature determined that it is more efficient for a private company to construct and maintain utilities then the government. Kuerth II at ¶56. Thus, a private company’s involvement is not relevant so long as “the primary benefit inures to the public.” Id. ¶54. The court found that landowners failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the public would not be the primary beneficiary.

The Kuerth decisions clarify that a utility company who receives a certificate or finding from the ICC regarding public convenience and necessity enjoys significant presumptions. These presumptions are an important tool to understand and consider in developing an efficient strategy in any condemnation case.

Do You Have Legal Questions Regarding Eminent Domain or Traverse Procedures?

Contact the skilled attorneys at Spesia & Taylor today at (815) 726-4311 and our eminent domain team will provide you with all the assistance you need.

Filed Under: Eminent Domain, News & Cases

Schedule a Consultation:

Contact us today to set up a time to speak with a Spesia & Taylor professional about your legal needs. CLICK HERE!

Featured News:

Spesia & Taylor Successfully Defends the City of Crest Hill in High-Profile Civil Rights Case

By: Michael R. Stiff Spesia & Taylor attorneys Jeff Taylor, and Mike Stiff on July 28, 2021, won a Motion to Reconsider the 2019 denial of a ... Read More

Amendments to the Illinois residential real property transfer on death instrument act provides more estate plan tools to individuals in order to avoid probate

The Illinois Residential Real Property Transfer Act (755 ILCS 27/1, et seq.) (the “Act”) provides for an owner, or co-owners, to transfer Illinois ... Read More

Spesia & Taylor Partners John Spesia and Jeff Taylor recognized as “Top Personal Injury Lawyers” in 2021

This September, Spesia & Taylor Partners John Spesia and Jeff Taylor were each recognized as “Top Personal Injury Lawyers” by LeadingLawyers.com. ... Read More

New Job Opportunity For Associate Attorney At The Law Firm Of Spesia & Taylor

Well established, dynamic, AV rated law firm is seeking associate attorney to join our practice. The law firm of Spesia & Taylor has been proudly ... Read More

Will County Legal Opportunity Scholarship Program Award Recipient Announced

Spesia & Taylor is a proud sponsor of the Will County Legal Opportunity Scholarship Program. The Scholarship awards a $5,000 per year up to three ... Read More

1415 Black Road
Joliet, IL 60435
Phone: (815) 726-4311
Fax: (815) 846-2410

Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Sitemap

footer-logo-1footer-logo-3footer-logo-4


© Copyright 2018 Spesia & Taylor Attorneys at Law. All rights reserved. Design by MoatzArt