Burden of Proof in Eminent Domain Valuation Proceedings in Arizona

My thesis examines the burden of proof in eminent domain valuation proceedings in the state of Arizona. The thesis begins by going back and looking at the history of eminent domain in the United States. This includes identifying the authorities with the power to condemn land and the examining constitutional amendment requiring the condemnor to pay the fair market value for the land it takes. From there, I look at the process of property value litigation and the potential combination of burden of proof on both the value of the land taken and severance damages. This is followed by an analysis of the current law in Arizona, and a comparison to the laws in the other 49 states to highlight trends throughout the nation. The thesis highlights the counterintuitive nature of the landowner bearing the burden of proving fair market value in Arizona while also pointing out that the majority of other states in the nation have similar laws. This law continues to exist despite a lack of historical precedent or justification, not only in Arizona, but also throughout the country. The thesis references different states' case law throughout and gives opinions of experts in this area of study. The final section examines the practical implications of the law as it exists in Arizona today. The law may continue to exist unopposed despite its counterintuitive nature, because it gives the defendant landowner's counsel the right to speak first and last in a trial and present their evidence first. This has the potential to offer an advantage large enough to justify an unwanted burden.