Condemnation just-compensation appraiser
Expert class library · Real estate and condemnation · Either side
Values property taken by eminent domain, including partial takings measured by the before-and-after method and severance damages to the remainder.
Ask this expertPreview
A preview of this class of expert, built from the public rulings on this page. Ask how the testimony is built, attacked or defended. 20 questions free with a firm email.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What was the property's highest and best use before the taking, and how does the expert support it with market evidence rather than plans or hopes?
- What comparable sales support the before and after values, and how do they reflect an easement or taking like this one?
- What market data supports any stigma or severance damage to the remainder, and does it relate to this kind of project?
- Did the expert value the whole remainder before and after the taking, rather than the strip taken alone?
- Are disputes about the comparables matters of fact for the factfinder, or do they show the method itself is unreliable?
Methods
- Before-and-after valuation
- Severance damage analysis
- Project influence exclusion
- Larger parcel determination
How the testimony is attacked
- Stigma without data. Condemnors attack after-taking values that rest on a theory of public fear rather than market evidence. In UGI Sunbury v. Permanent Easement for 1.7575 Acres the Third Circuit held that a pipeline stigma opinion built on a damaged goods theory, with no data tied to pipelines, should have been excluded even at a bench trial.
- Comparable sales that do not compare. Condemnors argue that sales unencumbered by a similar easement cannot measure the after value. In Mountain Valley Pipeline v. 9.89 Acres the Fourth Circuit held that disputes over the comparability of sales usually go to weight, and that the district court had applied a heightened standard in excluding an appraisal on that basis.
- Heightened gatekeeping in eminent domain. Some courts treated Rule 71.1 as giving extra discretion to exclude valuation evidence. The Fourth Circuit rejected that view in the Mountain Valley Pipeline cases and required the ordinary Rule 702 analysis, with factual disputes left for trial.
- Highest and best use assumptions. Opponents attack an appraisal that assumes a premium use the land could not support after the taking. In Mountain Valley Pipeline v. 0.32 Acres the court of appeals found that criticisms of an appraiser's residential homesite analysis did not show a fatal methodological flaw.
- Bench trial does not relax Rule 702. Landowners argue a judge can simply weigh a weak appraisal. UGI Sunbury held that the reliability requirement still applies when the judge is the factfinder, and vacated awards that relied on the unreliable testimony.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, ("just compensation" OR condemnation OR "eminent domain") AND apprais* AND expert AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 98 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 3, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | UGI Sunbury LLC v. Permanent Easement for 1.7575 Acres949 F.3d 825 | 3d Cir. 2020 | The Third Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by relying on a landowners' appraiser whose after-taking values rested on a pipeline stigma theory unsupported by data, and vacated the compensation awards for new valuation proceedings. |
| Exclusion reversed | Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 0.32 Acres of Land127 F.4th 437 | 4th Cir. 2025 | The Fourth Circuit vacated the exclusion of a landowner's before and after appraisal, holding the district court used a heightened standard and that the errors it identified did not show an unreliable method, insufficient facts or an unqualified appraiser. |
| Sent back for review | Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 9.89 Acres of LandNo. 23-2129 (4th Cir. Jan. 27, 2025) | 4th Cir. 2025 | The Fourth Circuit held that the ordinary rules of evidence govern expert testimony in eminent domain cases and vacated the exclusion of an appraiser's sales comparison report, remanding for a standard Rule 702 analysis because disputes over comparable sales generally go to weight. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 3, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.