|
With the blessing of officials from the Village of Port Chester, a politically connected developer approached Didden and his partner with an offer they couldn’t refuse. Because Didden planned to build a CVS on his property—land the developer coveted for a Walgreens—the developer demanded $800,000 from Didden to make him “go away” or ordered Didden to give him an unearned 50 percent stake in the CVS development. If Didden refused, the developer would have the Village of Port Chester condemn the land for his private use. Didden rejected the bold-faced extortion. The very next day the Village of Port Chester condemned Didden’s property through eminent domain so it could hand it over to the developer who made the threat.
| Essential Background | | Images | | Release: U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear Eminent Domain Extortion Case; Federal Court Allows Developers To Demand Cash Payments Under Eminent Domain Threat (January 16, 2007) | | Client Photo - none available | | | Client Video - none available | | |
| | Release: U.S. Supreme Court to Consider Eminent Extortion Case for Review; Developer Demanded $800,000 or Village Would Take Property; Property Owners Refused, Village Condemned Land Next Day (December 18, 2006) | | Legal Briefs and Decisions | | | IJ's Petition for Cert to the U.S.S.C. in Didden v. Port Chester - PDF (December 12, 2006)  | | | Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus on Petition for Cert to the U.S.S.C. | | | Epstein, Somin, Agha and Dinh Amicus on Petition for Cert to the U.S.S.C. | |
|
|
| | Case Timeline | | |
|
| |
|
|
| | Additional Releases |
| Maps, Charts and Facts | | none available | | MAP: State Supreme Court Rulings On Eminent Domain for Private Development | |
| | IJ’s first-ever nationwide census of eminent domain abuse: Public Power, Private Gain | |
|
|
| |
|
| Op-eds, News Articles and Links | | | | Article: High Court Refuses to Hear Eminent Domain Extortion Case, Liberty & Law (April 2007) |
|
