ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

JB, It's always bothered me that NC will pay you for taking part of your land, but won't include an estimate of your lost profits in the payment. Although that seems to clearly be all that NC law allows in a condemnation proceeding, it doesn't seem fair. So now and then I've been trying to think of ways that you might be able to get around that limitation. If you already have a mediation tentatively scheduled, it sounds like you're probably represented by a NC lawyer. If so, you should follow his or her advice, but here's something you might want to run by your lawyer. What you can recover in any court case depends on what type of claim you are making. As you know by now, in NC you can't recover lost profits in a condemnation proceeding - - there is a legal formula for what you can make the state pay you for the land it takes, and in NC that formula doesn't include anything for lost profits. But maybe your lawyer can figure out a way to bring an entirely different type of legal claim that would allow you to recover lost profits anyway. An example might make this easier to follow. Let's say, hypothetically, that the NCDOT is building the new bridge, and some welder carelessly starts a fire on the land the county took for the bridge, and it spreads to the adjoining land you still own and burns down your nearby barn. In that situtation, I think you might be able to bring a negligence suit against the NCDOT for the value of the destroyed barn. That's true even though the value of the barn on land you still own can't be recovered in the condemnation action. In short, it wasn't the mere taking of the land needed for the new bridge that caused the damage to the barn, it was something else (i.e., the welder's carelessness). Likewise, in your real situation, you need to find a way to claim that it isn't the mere taking of your land for the new bridge that will make you lose profits, but something else. The hard part is figuring out what that "something else" could be. Maybe thinking about a different hypothetical situation can help us figure it out. What if the NCDOT had decided to simply repair the existing bridge in a way that did NOT require NCDOT to take any of your existing land. In that situation, there would be no condemnation action, there would just be repair activity on land that the state already owned. Here's the key question - - in such a situation, if the particular way the repair work was done cut off your access to some portion of your land, is there any type of legal claim you could make to recover the profits you lost because of the impaired access? I don't know the answer, but if the answer is yes, then that type of legal claim, whatever it's called, is the "something else" you need. Stated differently, if you could hypothetically recover profits lost because bridge repair crews temporarily cut off your cattle's access to part of your land, why should the state get a better deal in your real situation just because they also needed to permanently take some of your land? This approach may or may not work (because I don't know the answer to what I called the "key question" above), and I don't have any NC case law to support it. But if your lost profits are big enough, you might want to print this post out and ask your lawyer to read it. There's at least some chance that it might help him or her see a way to get you a bigger payment from the state. Either way, good luck!

Wish I had a nickel for every time some announcer stated that one particular aspect of a football game was "all-important."

Recently went car shopping and considered a hybrid - - the sales guy actually said that because of the hybrid's regenerative braking system, I would get the best gas mileage by braking as hard and often as possible.

Towson isn't exactly a football factory, and we drafted 2 safeties ahead of him. Will he get any respect from the coaching staff?

They made Jason Collins come out of an NBA game just because he's gay? That ain't right.

Doesn't Hackett have a degree in neurobiology? Maybe when one speedster gets blown up by a LB or S, he'll be able to use the other for spare parts.

Wait just a minute. When exactly did Buddy say that? If it was less than 30 days before the draft, and he was telling the truth, then he might have lied about it.

Too bad his name isn't Nassip.

So essentially what you want is a slanted system where the schedule allows teams that suck to make the playoffs at the expense of teams that are indisputably better. Sorry, but I'm a fan of the NFL, and what you propose is even worse than giving out participation trophies. Let me throw this one at you - - how about if we improve enough so that we deserve to be in the playoffs?

I'm glad we cleared that up.

Which one?

Sorry. I was going for a twofer on the spur of the foment.

This thread is a real henway

So tell me Luke Skywalker, why would a team that drafts higher than # 8 even waste any time wondering about which player the Bills want to take at # 8? That would matter to a team drafting in slots 1-7 only if that team was planning to trade down below # 8, but would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to a team that was planning to use picks 1-7 to actually take a player without a trade. If you think any NFL GM is going to evaluate a player drafted in slots 1-7 based on public comments of some OTHER NFL team's GM, you haven't been paying attention. Disinformation about what Nix plans to do with pick # 8 might affect the plans of teams that (1) already have a later pick (because they might be induced to believe that they need to trade up to get the player they want), or (2) are thinking that they can trade down from slots 1-7 to below # 8 and still get the player they want because he won't be picked sooner (by the Bills or anyone else). The only teams that could NOT be influenced by disinformation about who the Bills plan to take with pick # 8 are exactly those teams that you mistakenly think are being targeted by the disinformation.

History has a wastebin?

More importantly, how thick is his superior temporal sulcus? http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/155421-mckelvin-may-have-a-thin-superior-temporal-sulcus/page__hl__sulcus

In something akin to the original spirit of this thread (now I've offended family) :

According to an NBC News website, there were some homes in the area when the fertilizer distribution center/plant was built, but a subdivision, the nursing home and schools were built LATER. It's easier to blame corporations than the people who "came to the nuisance." Would you force the fertilizer company to move because others chose to build a subdivision, a nursing home and schools near their existing site? http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/19/17818046-texas-fertilizer-plant-also-stored-explosive-chemical-used-in-oklahoma-city-bomb?lite

Thought this was interesting: http://hypervocal.com/news/2013/marathon-waco-survivor-japan-bombs/

Saw one I liked yesterday on a pickup truck: "Driver Carries No Cash He's MARRIED." Better yet, the word "married" had a thin blue diagonal line through it using what looked like painter's trim tape.

How do you say "uh-oh" in Chinese? http://news.yahoo.com/china-says-investigating-human-human-spread-bird-flu-044438853.html

I should have called it "predatory pricing" (when you sell a product below cost to drive a smaller competitor out of business) rather than "price-fixing" (which is something different). http://www.cleveland...titors_que.html Not sure if the net effect of a "ridiculously" large rebate would be selling below cost, but it seems possible. In any event, it sounds like one of Flying J's competitors is speculating that the investigation may involve anti-competitive business practices by Flying J. Maybe that's just wishful thinking by the competitor - - we'll see.

http://www.latimes.c...,0,753185.story Am I the only one who wants to know what the guy's hat actually said?

Just a wild-a$$ guess, but since you're inviting them . . . (a) Some sort of price-fixing or antitrust investigation? Do they have enough locations and market power to (1) price diesel fuel for big rigs below cost to force smaller competitors out of business, and then (2) charge monopoly prices after they "own" the market? Not saying they've done that, but any business that controls a large percentage of a given market (for any product) has the potential to illegally monopolize their market. Not sure why that would involve IRS agents, though, unless they were keeping 2 sets of books to somehow try to hide their true pricing practices. (b) for gasoline, part of the cost we all pay at the pump is state and federal taxes - - my guess (it's just a guess) is that it's the same for diesel fuel. So maybe they falsely reported the amount of federal fuel tax that they are required to pay the government, and kept some for themselves? Both are just wild guesses.

You may already know this, but I believe (not 100% certain) that if you ever roll over funds from one tax-deferred account to another, the exact amount of the rollover must be reported to the IRS by your financial institution, and you are required to report the amount of the rollover on your own tax return. Not the same thing as continuous tracking of your accounts, but something to be aware of if government intrusion in your financial affairs concerns you.