GSS, LLC v. Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co.
2014 Ark. 144
| Ark. | 2014Background
- GSS, LLC challenged a jury award of $64,000 for a gas pipeline easement taken by CenterPoint Energy; issue involved permissible procedures and evidentiary rules in an eminent-domain case under NGA and Arkansas statutes.
- CenterPoint filed a condemnation petition, declaration of taking, and order of possession after offers failed; proceedings included deposit of $64,000 into court registry.
- GSS asserted counterclaims for unlawful taking, civil-rights act violations, trespass, and outrage; CenterPoint moved for dismissal and for summary judgment.
- Trial court held Arkansas condemnation procedures constitutional, and the jury ultimately awarded $64,000; GSS appealed challenging evidentiary rulings and preemption/ due-process issues.
- On appeal, the court affirmed in part and rejected GSS’s claims; the dissent argued permitting further cross-examination of CenterPoint’s appraiser could yield a different result.
- Key procedural posture: pretrial rulings and evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; summary judgment evaluates genuine issues of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Green property valuation evidence was wrongly excluded | GSS; Green evidence is highly relevant | CenterPoint; Green is not comparable and not discussed in reports | No abuse of discretion; evidence excluded |
| Whether NGA preemption applies to condemnation procedures | GSS; Arkansas procedures preempted by NGA | CenterPoint; procedures consistent with NGA and state law | Summary judgment on preemption upheld |
| Whether CenterPoint negotiated in good faith under 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) | GSS; CenterPoint failed to negotiate in good faith | CenterPoint; evidence shows months of negotiation and rerouting consideration | Summary judgment on good-faith negotiation affirmed |
| Whether due-process concerns (possession order) were violated | GSS; ex parte actions and notice issues | CenterPoint; proceedings complied with statutory deposit and trial rights | No due-process violation; procedures satisfied under Arkansas statutes |
Key Cases Cited
- Arkansas Hwy. Comm'n v. Barker, 326 Ark. 403, 931 S.W.2d 138 (1996) (sales of nearby property not competent evidence of value in condemnation)
- First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Ark. Hwy. Comm'n, 265 Ark. 417, 579 S.W.2d 587 (1979) (condemnation valuation rules; not evidence of value by sale)
- Pfeifer v. City of Little Rock, 346 Ark. 449, 57 S.W.3d 714 (2001) (broad discretion in location of eminent domain; due-process focus on compensation)
- Ex parte Reynolds, 52 Ark. 330, 12 S.W. 570 (1889) (notice of deposit of money; due-process considerations)