Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

SDS Co. v. State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources

Date: 06-12-2000

Case Number: 00-2-00093-5

Judge: Heather K. Van Nuys

Court: Superior Court, Yakima County, Washington

Plaintiff's Attorney: Michael E. Haglund,
Schott W. Horngren and
Michael Neff of Haglund, Kirtley, Kelly & Horngren, Portland, Oregon

Defendant's Attorney: Michael Grossman and
Glen Anderson, Oregon State Attorney General's Office, Salem, Oregon

Description:

Inverse condemnation - Logging company was prevented from harvesting forest where endangered spotted owls lived. Plaintiff claimed that the state took its property without judge compensation. The state offered to let the plaintiff harvest trees if it agreed to a polan for the harvestin with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spanning thousands of acres of forest. Because the restrictions on harvesting of trees from the small plot in question were so restrictive, plaintiff claimed that the regulation of its logging activities constituted a taking.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's verdict for $2.25 million.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Unknown

Defendant's Experts:

Unknown

Comments:

None

About This Case

What was the outcome of SDS Co. v. State of Washington, Department of Natural Res...?

The outcome was: Plaintiff's verdict for $2.25 million.

Which court heard SDS Co. v. State of Washington, Department of Natural Res...?

This case was heard in Superior Court, Yakima County, Washington, WA. The presiding judge was Heather K. Van Nuys.

Who were the attorneys in SDS Co. v. State of Washington, Department of Natural Res...?

Plaintiff's attorney: Michael E. Haglund, Schott W. Horngren and Michael Neff of Haglund, Kirtley, Kelly & Horngren, Portland, Oregon. Defendant's attorney: Michael Grossman and Glen Anderson, Oregon State Attorney General's Office, Salem, Oregon.

When was SDS Co. v. State of Washington, Department of Natural Res... decided?

This case was decided on June 12, 2000.