Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GUARDIAN PIPELINE, L.L.C., v. 950.80 ACRES OF LAND

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois


May 3, 2004.

GUARDIAN PIPELINE, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
v.
950.80 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, in Kendall and McHenry Counties, Illinois; RANDOLPH J. REIGH, et al., and UNKNOWN OTHERS, and WILL COUNTY ILLINOIS, a Body Politic and Corporate, Defendants

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JAMES MORAN, Senior District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On July 18, 2003, we ordered that, in the first instance, crop damage claims "of actual crop damage" be submitted on an annual basis to plaintiff, pursuant to plaintiff's obligations under the Illinois Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan. We left open the possibility of reconvening the Commission if there was a future dispute over fair compensation.

Certain defendants now contend that there is a dispute and ask that the Commission be reconvened to resolve it. Plaintiff responds by representing that those defendants have not submitted any actual data "concerning crop type(s), yields, acreage planted, and sales dates and prices." Rather, they relied on hypothetical projected estimates prepared by a consultant. Accordingly, plaintiff came up with its own calculations and issued checks for those amounts, some cashed and some not, but, in any event, for amounts these defendants believe inadequate.

  So, who is right? Either these defendants have the supplied data of actual crop damage, as required by the July 18, 2003 order, or they have not. We ask the Commission to determine whether or not these defendants have complied with that order and whether plaintiff has reasonably responded to the submissions — a limited inquiry. If they have not, and plaintiff has reasonably responded, these defendants shall pay the expenses of the inquiry. If they have, and plaintiff has not reasonably responded, we ask the Commission to recommend how most expeditiously to resolve these crop damages claims — and plaintiff shall pay the expenses of the inquiry.

20040503

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.