¶20 A condemnation action "brought to obtain private property for public use is a special proceeding and not a civil action, to be carried out in accordance with the methods prescribed by the legislature." Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 0, 354 P.2d 458 (syllabus by the court). The Court has long held that the question of damages in a condemnation case is a matter for the jury, State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. LeVan, 1938 OK 88, ¶ 7, 182 Okla. 371, 77 P.2d 748, and the jury's verdict will be upheld unless it "manifestly appears that it is unjust and not supported by any competent evidence."
The components are: (1) The market value of the property actually taken, and (2) damages to the remaining property not taken. Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Perkins, 1997 OK 72, 952 P.2d 483. As used in this calculus, property means "not only real estate held in fee, but also easements, personal property and every valuable interest which can be enjoyed and recognized as property." State ex. rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Little, 2004 OK 74, ¶ 22, 100 P.3d 707, 718; Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 18, 354 P.2d 458, 461. Landowners may recover compensation for either direct and consequential harm for property taken or damaged by way of either a direct or indirect taking.
A taking can occur when a governmental entity with the right to eminent domain overtly exercises dominion and control over private property, including when a governmental entity seeks an easement for the use of private property. Mattoon v. City of Norman, 1980 OK 137, ¶ 12, 617 P.2d 1347, 1349; Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 18, 354 P.2d 458, 461. ¶11 The Court has also held that just compensation for a taking is determined as of the time a taking occurs.
The date of the condemnor's payment into the court is deemed the date of taking.Board of County Comm'rs of Creek County v. Casteel, 1974 OK 31, ¶ 20, 522 P.2d 608; Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 16, 354 P.2d 458; Epperson v. Johnson, 1941 OK 374, ¶ 0, 119 P.2d 818.Board of County Comm'rs of Creek County v. Casteel, see note 8, supra; Graham v. City of Duncan, see note 8, supra; Oklahoma City v. Wells, 1939 OK 62, ¶ 34, 91 P.2d 1077.
Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. Burk, 1966 OK 113, ¶ 13, 415 P.2d 1001; Stinchcomb v. Oklahoma City, see note 4, supra. See also, Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 21, 354 P.2d 458 [Where crop was destroyed during taking, issue of value of crop was evaluated at time of trial.]. The Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24, see note 2, supra.
We construe the state takings clause in accord with the principle first recognized by our predecessors in Blincoe many years ago: that the compulsory addition to the cost of personal property is as much a taking as the condemnation of real estate. As we said in Driver v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority,Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 18, 354 P.2d 458, 461. See generally F.D. Puckett, Annotation, " Cost to Property Owner of Moving Personal Property as Element of Damages or Compensation in Eminent Domain Proceedings," 69 A.L.R.2d 1453 (1960).
. . ."State Dept. of Highways v. O'Dea, 1976 OK 133, ¶ 6, 555 P.2d 587;Gaylord v. State Dept. of Highways, 1975 OK 63, ¶ 16, 540 P.2d 558;Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 16, 354 P.2d 458.Graham v. City of Duncan, see note 10, supra.
"The term property . . . includes not only real estate held in fee, but also easements, personal property and every valuable interest which can be enjoyed and recognized as property." Graham v. City of Duncan,1960 OK 149, ¶ 18, 354 P.2d 458, 461. Where no physical taking of property has occurred, the property owner is still entitled to just compensation if the government's actions constitute such a "substantial interference" with the use of the property that a de facto taking of the owner's property occurs.
Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24; 27 O.S.2011 § 16. “The term property ... includes not only real estate held in fee, but also easements, personal property and every valuable interest which can be enjoyed and recognized as property.” Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 18, 354 P.2d 458, 461. Where no physical taking of property has occurred, the property owner is still entitled to just compensation if the government's actions constitute such a “substantial interference” with the use of the property that a de facto taking of the owner's property occurs.
Okla. Const. art. 2, § 24 ; 27 O.S.2011 § 16. “The term property ... includes not only real estate held in fee, but also easements, personal property and every valuable interest which can be enjoyed and recognized as property.” Graham v. City of Duncan, 1960 OK 149, ¶ 18, 354 P.2d 458, 461. Where no physical taking of property has occurred, the property owner is still entitled to just compensation if the government's actions constitute such a “substantial interference” with the use of the property that a de facto taking of the owner's property occurs.