Reference is made to substantive and procedural law which is the basis of inverse condemnations. Problems preliminary to trial on claims of unconstitutional takings or damagings of private property quite often hinge on preliminary investigations before construction and discovery procedures. The status of the contractor in Washington state law is reviewed. Measures of compensation laid down in Washington are: (1) relating to permanent injuries is the before and after rule, (2) temporary injuries is the reasonable expense of restoring the land and the loss of income pending such restoration rule. Cases involving this distinction do not lay down a rule for determining whether a particular injury is permanent or temporary. The cost to cure approach is reviewed. Damages to property remaining after a partial taking are discussed. A problem arises where a partial taking of right-of-way is based upon certain construction plans and the department subsequently changes its plans. This is involved in the case of Feuerborn v. State. The measure of compensation in this case was based on the difference between: (1) the amount of compensation for the taking of the right of direct access to the highways, and (2) the compensation to which they would have been entitled had the present construction plans been placed in evidence in the condemnation proceeding. In other words, the measure of damages was the difference between the amount of damage to the condemnees' property under the original plan and under the latter plans. Procedures and tactics in the trial of an inverse condemnation are concluded to be similar to those in the trial of the usual condemnation. It is emphasized that more care must be taken at each stage of a direct condemnation case.
Abstract