Verdicts & Settlements | Ackerson Kauffman Fex, P.C.

SUCCESS IN EVERY AREA OF OUR PRACTICE

Property Rights Cases

Because Property Rights cases are a major focus of our practice, the list below is only a sampling of our successfully concluded representations.

Eminent Domain/Individual Easement Clients

Our firm has been in eminent domain and inverse condemnation actions involving highways, airports, stadiums, and parks as well as expansion of gas pipelines, electric and telecommunication lines. Most disputes have been successfully resolved through settlements without reported decisions in litigation.

Often our successes in eminent domain and takings cases have involved litigation or threats of litigation, regulatory challenges, state legislative issues, and mobilization of public support for those whose land or property rights are at risk. A prominent example in which we successfully represented our client in all of these areas is described in the following case history and newspaper articles: litigation

Indiana Stadium and Convention Building Authority v. Universal Transparent Bag Co., Inc. and N. K. Hurst Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 49D01-0512-PL-050374 (Marion Super. Ct. Ind. Aug. 8, 2006)

Articles about that case linked below show the multi-front strategy and the successful conclusion.

Another prominent case involved an appeal to a U.S. Court of Appeals followed by a case that we brought directly before the Ohio Supreme Court.

State ex rel. Coles v. Granville, 116 Ohio St.3d 231, 2007-Ohio-6057, 877 N.E.2d 968 (Ohio 2007)

As a final example, we represent landowners in Wisconsin over the potential use of their private property by the County

Samuel C. Johnson 1988 Trust v. Bayfield County, 470 F.Supp.2d 958 (W.D. Wis. 2007)

Right of Way

We have represented thousands of landowners in class action suits over the use of right of ways for telecommunications without payment to landowners who own the land under the tracks or electric poles. To date 63 suits have been successfully completed. We provide citations below for representative suits with reported decisions, as well as major articles profiling our work in this area.

• Koyle v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., slip op, 2010 WL 3168346, (D. Idaho Aug. 6, 2010)

• Hinshaw v. AT&T Corp., 1998 WL 1799019 (Ind. Aug. 24,1998)

•· Home on the Range v. AT&T Corp., 386 F.Supp.2d 999 (S.D. Ind. 2005)

•· Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., 309 F.3d 978 (7 ^th Cir. Oct. 29, 2002)

•· Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., 2001 WL 987840 (S.D. Ind. Aug 28, 2001)

•· Fisher v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 217 F.R.D. 201 (E.D. Va. 2003)

•· Hefty v. All Other Members of the Certified Settlement Class, 680 N.E.2d 843 (Ind. 1997)

•· Consolidated Rail Corp., Inc. v. Lewellen, 666 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. App. Ct. 1996)

•· CSX Transp., Inc. v. Clark, 646 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)

•· Alison Frankel, Blood on the Tracks, Am. Law., June 2002 at 74

•· Elizabeth Amon, Working on the RRs, 21 Nat'l L.J. 51 (1999)

Rails to trails

We are one of the preeminent firms representing landowners who object to trail conversions on railroad right of way or who seek to be compensated for their land when it is taken for a trail. We provide links below for representative suits.

•· Bywaters v. United States, 2010 WL 3212124 (E.D. Texas, Aug. 12, 2010)

•· Bywaters v. United States, 196 F.R.D. 458 (E.D. Texas 2000) (class cert)

•· Schneider v. United States, 2008 WL 160921 (D. Neb., Jan. 15, 2008)

•· Schneider v. United States, 2003 WL 25711838 (D. Neb. 2003)

•· Hash v. United States, 2008 WL 818347 (D. Idaho, Mar. 24, 2008)

•· Hash v. United States, 2007 WL 1309548 (D. Idaho 2007)

•· Hash v. United States, 403 F.3rd 1408 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

•· Blendu v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 543 (2007)

•· Schmitt v. United States, 2003 WL 21057368 (S.D. Ind. 2003)

•· Swisher v. United States, 262 F.Supp.2d 1203 (D. Kan. 2003)

•· Lowers v. United States, 2001 WL 1200869 (S.D. Iowa 2001)

•· Preseault v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 667 (2002)

Commercial and Financial Disputes

Our attorneys have been retained in bet-the-company litigation involving banking and finance, intellectual property, real estate, biotechnology, contract claims, and corporate acquisition disputes. Among our successes are the following:

Successful representation of the defendant in the largest patent damages case on record at the time.

Lead counsel in saving a family owned company that has grown to become one of the nation's most successful food distributors from forced relocation under threat of eminent domain.

Successful recovery of a substantial settlement through threatened litigation of a claim for lost profits arising from wind-spread drift of bio-engineered plant pollen that destroyed the value of seed produced on neighboring land.

Representation of a bank against its regulator, requiring regulatory litigation, an appeal to a U. S. Court of Appeals, and ultimately passage of a law by the United States Congress specifically enforcing the specific bank's right to re-organize.

Representation of several banks in the Farm Credit System in litigation to recover $415 million dollars of assets and in related congressional legislation.

Contract litigation over $16 million in tax liabilities arising from an acquisition dispute between two New York Stock Exchange listed companies.

Federal legislative and regulatory process

Louisiana Federal Land Bank Association, FCLA, et al. v. Farm Credit Administration, 36 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

Testimony, United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Takings Litigation Against the Government in the Rails-to-Trails Program, June 2002

Supplemental Written Testimony, Surface Transportation Board, Twenty-Five Years of Rail Banking: A Review and Look Ahead, STB Ex-Parte No. 690, August 2009

Agricultural finance and biotech disputes

Representation of several banks in the Farm Credit System in litigation to recover $415 million dollars of assets and in related congressional legislation

Led representation of a U.S. biotech company's successful effort to obtain necessary research materials from China, including administrative proceedings before APHIS, drafting a protocol for a bilateral treaty, and hearings before a congressional committee.

Buckeye Production Credit Ass'n v. Farm Credit Admin., 997 F.2d 11 (1993)

International Disputes

Our attorneys have represented U.S. and European companies in international litigation and arbitration, and investment and trade disputes both in the United States and international tribunals, including the following:

Construction contract arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce in Geneva.

Successful prosecution of claims on behalf of a victim of human rights abuses in a foreign jurisdictions by a major U.S. media firm.

Defense of U.S. and non-U.S. companies in actions to impose tariffs or countervailing duties on products imported into the United States.

Due diligence activities in the United States and 15 other countries concerning a proposed acquisition manufacturer and major importer of essential components of its products against a threat by the U.S. Trade Representative and the U.S. International Trade Commission.

Drafting investment policies and laws and participating in international trade and investment missions on behalf of U.S. business and commercial interests in the Middle East, Russia, and Kazakhstan.

Claims Against the U.S. Government

•· Amaliksen, et al. v. United States, No. 1:99-cv-00006-EGB (2003)

•· Barclay, et al. v. United States, No. 04-1119-WEB

•· Blendu, et al. v. United States, No. 1:01-cv-00718-ECH

•· Brown, et al. v. United States, No. 1:04-cv-01473-MBH

•· Collins, et al. v. United States, No. 1:04-cv-01472-MBH

•· Ellamae Phillips Company v. United States, No. 1:04-cv-01544-LMB

•· Estate of Pearl Welch, et al. v. United States, No. 1:04-cv-01471-MBH

•· Hash, et al. v. United States, No. 1:99-cv-00324-MHW

•· Preseault, et al. v. United States, No. 1:90-cv-04043-CCM (2002)

•· Schneider, et al. v. United States, No. 8:99-cv-00315

•· Schroeder v. United States, No. 1:04-CV-014596-MBH

•· Snider v. United States, No. 1:01-cv-7181-ECH

•· Swisher v. United States, No. 98-1352-CM

•· Waverly Hills Club, Inc., et al. v. United States, No. 1:04-cv-01474-MBH

Class Actions

•· Firestone v. APU,

•· Gadotti v. AT&T Corp., No. 02-CV-7004 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· Hinshaw v. AT&T Corp., No. 98-CV-1300 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· K&D Investments, LLP v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 04-C-7015 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· Neill v. AT&T Corp ., No. 02-CV-7003 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· Peterson v. AT&T Corp ., No. 02-CV-7000 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· Reise v. AT&T Corp ., No. 00-CV-1292 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· Wallace v. AT&T Corp ., No. 03-CV-7009 (S.D. Ind. April 6, 2006)

•· Eckers v. AT&T Corp ., No. 06-CV-7016 (S.D. Ind. July 19, 2006)

•· Saulny v. AT&T Corp ., No. 06-CV-7017 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 29, 2006)

•· Bordwell v. AT&T Corp ., No. 06-602551 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25, 2006)

•· Rindlisbacher v. AT&T Corp ., No. 03-CV-7010 (S.D. Ind. July 19, 2006)

•· Tammaro v. AT&T Corp ., No. BUR-L-2074-06 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Oct. 23, 2006)

•· Alpert v. AT&T Corp. , No. IP 99-CV-1891 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2005)

•· Home on the Range v. AT&T Corp. , 386 F.Supp.2d 999 (S.D. Ind. 2005)

•· Sparks Cedarlee Farm v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 02-C-7002 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2005)9-M Corp. v. AT&T Corp. , No. IP 01-C-1837 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2005)

•· Gearity v. AT&T Corp ., No. 03-CV-7011 (S.D. Ind. May 20, 2005)

•· Mikos v. AT&T Corp ., No. 00-CV-1294 (S.D. Ind. July 8, 2005)

•· Reynolds v. AT&T Corp. , No. IP 00-C-0827 (S.D. Ind. July 8, 2005)

•· Thomson v. AT&T Corp ., No. 99-C-1890 (S.D. Ind. July 8, 2005)

•· Spanish Springs, L.L.C. v. AT&T Corp ., No. 03-CV-7012 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 4, 2005)

•· Koyle v. Level 3, No. CV 01-0286-S-BLW (D. Idaho Dec. 5, 2005)

•· (Certified litigation class)

•· Benton v. AT&T Corp ., No.03-CV-7013 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2005)

•· Boreen v. AT&T Corp ., No. 02-CV-7005 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 9, 2005)

•· Hill Pleasant Farm, Inc. v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 03-C-7007 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 22, 2004)

•· Peschell v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 99-C-1889 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 22, 2004)

•· Taylor v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 00-CV-0828 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 15, 2004)

•· Butler v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 02-C-7001 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 22, 2004)

•· Coffey v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 03-C-7006 (S.D. Ind. Oct. 22, 2004)

•· Billinovich, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al ., Civil Action No. IP-00-1293-C (S.D. Ind., Oct. 7, 2003)

•· Fisher v. Virginia Electric Power Company, 217 F.R.D. 201 (E.D. Va. 2003)

•· Nance v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 99-C-1892 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 7, 2003)

•· O'Connell v. AT&T Corp ., No. IP 99-C-1893 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 7, 2003)

•· Morgan, et al. v. AT&T Corp ., et al., Civil Action No. IP 01-646-C (S.D. Indiana, May 31, 2002) (Class Certification Order - unpublished opinion)

•· Rattee, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Civil Action No. IP 01-1657-C (S.D. Indiana, May 31, 2002) (Class Certification Order - unpublished opinion)

•· Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., 309 F.3d 978 (7 ^th Cir. Oct. 29, 2002)

•· Uhl v. Thoroughbred Technology and Telecommunications, Inc., 2001 WL 987840 (S.D. Ind. Aug 28, 2001)

•· Peschell, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al ., Civil Action No. IP 99-C 1889 (S.D. Indiana, Sept. 10, 2001) (Class Certification Order - unpublished opinion)

•· Reynolds, et al. v. AT&T Corp ., et al., Civil Action No. IP 00-827-C (S.D. Indiana, Sept. 10, 2001) (Class Certification Order - unpublished opinion)

•· Billinovich, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al ., Civil Action No. IP 00-1293-C (S.D. Indiana, Sept. 10, 2001) (Class Certification Order - unpublished opinion)

•· Air Ag, Inc. v. F & H Santa Fe Rail, Inc., 22 S.W.3d 596 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000) (Amicus)

•· Bywaters v. United States, 196 F.R.D. 458, 2000 WL 1481126 (E.D. Tex. 2000) (Plaintiffs)

•· Clark v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 737 N.E.2d 752, 2000 WL 1512364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (Plaintiffs)

•· Hash v. United States, 2000 WL 1460801, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20061 (D. Idaho 2000) (Plaintiffs)

•· Hinshaw v. AT&T Corp., 1998 WL 1799019 (Ind.Super. August 24, 1998)

•· Consolidated Rail Corp., Inc. v. Lewellen, 666 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. App. Ct. 1996)

Successes