Skip to content

Stephon Bagne Secures Major Victory in Airport Taking

December 18, 2023

Birmingham Member Stephon Bagne successfully represented a pair of property owners in a northern Michigan airport eminent domain matter. Through settlement following pretrial motions, Bagne secured an additional payment of $1.79 million.

The settlement amount is approximately 15 times the amount the airport intended to offer as just compensation at trial.

“The airport condemned an avigation easement. While it did not expressly preclude expansion of the existing business, it was our position that it made an expansion imprudent,” Bagne said.

Bagne initially sought $1.5 million in additional just compensation. A week prior to trial, the airport filed a motion to exclude Bagne’s appraisal position by arguing expansion was still a possibility.

“I had chosen not to seek to strike the airport’s appraisal for strategic reasons but when the airport decided to attack our position, I responded in kind,” Bagne said.

During a pre-trial hearing, the judge ruled in Bagne’s favor on all motions, allowing his appraisal to be admitted while excluding the airport’s appraisal. The trial was adjourned and settlement followed.

“The airport faced the uncertainty that judgment could be entered in our appraisal amount while we faced the uncertainty that the judge might allow the airport to reappraise the property and essentially restart the litigation process,” Bagne said.

Settlement led to each side making concessions in the easement language while formally preventing expansion of the property owners’ existing business. The airport agreed to language that reduced some of the damages Bagne claimed by allowing other uses on the property, and the airport paid out the vast majority of Bagne’s remaining claims and all the property owners’ legal, expert witness, and other litigation expenses, allowing the owners to keep all the just compensation and interest paid.

“This was a huge victory, and I’m very happy for our clients to have a positive outcome in this matter,” Bagne said. “I’ve handled hundreds of condemnation cases and airport takings matters, so it’s great to be able to help another client get the compensation they deserve.  It was particularly satisfying because the Court relied upon a published opinion upholding a jury verdict that I had obtained in a prior airport condemnation.”

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

California Announces Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with GM Over Connected Vehicle Data

On May 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with several California district attorneys and the California Privacy Protection Agency, announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors and its connected vehicle service OnStar. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law by collecting and selling connected vehicle data without adequate consumer notice or consent.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Long Saga of Colorado AI Act Appears to Have Come to Close With Revised Law

Ever since its initial passage into law in 2024, the Colorado AI Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and calls for change. Over the ensuing two years, multiple attempts to amend the law were floated and proposed by consumer and industry groups. The implementation of the law itself was delayed several times to allow for such changes, with Governor Jared Polis calling a special session of the legislature last August to specifically address potential changes. All of those attempts appear to have culminated in Senate Bill 189 having passed both the Colorado House (57-6) and Senate (34-1) this week. The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis where it is expected to be signed into law and to take effect as of January of 2027.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Using “Schedule A” Litigation to Combat Online Trademark Infringement

In today’s digital world, trademark infringement is a significant concern for businesses aiming to protect their brand identity. Accordingly, it is important for businesses to implement a multifaceted online enforcement strategy to protect their intellectual property rights. Among the various legal avenues available to combat counterfeit goods and unauthorized use of trademarks, “Schedule A” lawsuits, which are most often filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have emerged as a powerful tool. As intellectual property attorneys at Clark Hill, we regularly help businesses secure and enforce their IP rights. Here, we will explore what Schedule A trademark infringement litigation entails, how it works, and why it’s essential for companies to understand this avenue for enforcing their legal rights.

Explore more