(Download) "Earl D. Tanner and Mary Louise Tanner v." by Supreme Court Of Utah # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Earl D. Tanner and Mary Louise Tanner v.
- Author : Supreme Court Of Utah
- Release Date : January 25, 1982
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
PER CURIAM: Petitioners herein seek an extraordinary writ requiring the district court to give them an evidentiary hearing in the case of Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City v. Earl D. Tanner, et al., Civil No. C80-250. On July 23, 1981, this Court remanded that case, together with the record and file, to the third district court for further proceedings on the issue of the Redevelopment Agency's entitlement to condemn the Landowners' real property and improvements. Petitioners claim that they were induced to withdraw their challenge to the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency's (hereafter R.D.A.) condemnation proceeding against their property by specific representations that the subject property would be used for a municipal office building and plaza complex. That challenge 1 included assertions that the subject property was not a blighted property within the meaning of U.C.A., 1953, 11-9-2(10) and 11-19-9, and that there was in fact no legitimate public use for the property as required by 78-34-1. Petitioners claim that the R.D.A.'s representations to them about the city office building and plaza complex persuaded them that the property was being condemned for a public use within the statutory requirements. They therefore were led to believe that they had no valid defense in the condemnation action, nor possibility of success in the related lawsuit noted above. Consequently, they were willing to enter into a stipulation which assumed the existence of the R.D.A.'s entitlement to condemn. Pursuant to that stipulation, they removed from court the condemnation funds deposited by the R.D.A. They now claim that the representation concerning the public building construction was either false when made, or has become false because the redevelopment agency has abandoned the plan calling for such construction. The argument is that petitioners should be allowed to pursue defenses which they gave up only because the agency misrepresented, or has abandoned, the existence of an uncontroverted public use.