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.

For decades, firms and individuals have utilized written documents to aid in the negotiation of, and completion of, business transactions. One such document is known as a "letter of intent." A letter of intent is often in the form of a letter that serves to evidence preliminary discussions and aid in negotiations between parties. They are generally intended to be "non-binding," meaning neither party will be bound by terms or conditions set forth in the letter of intent unless formal documents are later prepared and executed by the parties. Letters of intent take myriad forms and names, such as "memorandum of understanding," "proposal letter," and "letter of interest." They have been used in many areas of business, including finance, real estate, and supply chain management. Parties often choose to use a letter of intent for varied benefits it may provide, memorializing preliminary discussions, establishing a timeline for negotiations, seeing whether there are any "deal breakers" among terms being proposed, confirming that a party is serious about a deal, or putting moral pressure on the other party to continue negotiations. However, letters of intent carry with them a significant level of risk, which raises the question of whether or not they should be used at all. Many of the risks associated with the use of a letter of intent stems from the potential for a court to find that a letter of intent constitutes a binding agreement, or creates a duty of the parties to continue negotiations in good faith. Parties to a letter of intent may later disagree as to whether they intended all of the terms, or a particular provision, to be legally binding and enforceable, resulting in legal action. Even if a court finds that a letter of intent does not constitute a binding contract, a party may be able to recover damages under a number of legal theories, such as breach of a duty to negotiate in good faith or promissory estoppel. The use of letters of intent is therefore risky, and ultimately, the risks may outweigh the benefits of utilizing letters of intent. This thesis studies the types, uses, benefits, and risks associated with the use of letters of intent, including an examination of statutes and cases that have been applied by courts in disputes surrounding their use. Ways to mitigate the risks of use are also examined including simple practices such as not signing a letter of intent and using a separate document for any terms which must be binding, such as a "no shop" clause. A proposed legislative solution is also discussed that would prevent letters of intent not explicitly intended to be binding and meeting statutory requirements from being enforced in court, thereby substantially reducing the risks associated with the use of letters of intent.

This focuses on recent changes in Arizona eminent domain law regarding the question of whether a use be "truly public." In light of the landmark decision in Bailey v City of Mesa--often lauded as a great victory for proponents of private property rights-- a few sources will be reviewed to provide an indication of the extent redevelopment in Arizona has been affected by the decision. While the result in Bailey, precluding the City from taking the subject property may have been the correct outcome, the test to which the case now subjects any similar case involving redevelopment has made it unnecessarily difficult for political subdivisions of the state to carry out legislated redevelopment goals. The Bailey case only served to convolute the question of "public use" in the context of economic development, rather than create a workable body of law. In addition to providing a historical context and analyzing the effect of new interpretations on redevelopment generally, this paper will critique the Bailey decision in order to resolve the conflict that the decision created: that of the redevelopment goals of the state and municipalities and the authorized use of condemnation to achieve these goals with the judiciary's decision to greatly restrict the use of condemnation for the achievement of redevelopment goals. Arguably this conflict arose from a failure to fully understand the complexities of the use of the power of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes. Unaware of the need to use eminent domain in order to speed along and make possible economic redevelopment, overzealous proponents of property rights have reduced the issue to a narrow view of the state vs. the individual. Hopefully this paper can offer a more moderate and unbiased view of the use of eminent domain in light of the charge of the state and municipalities to facilitate economic growth.