Short answer. Yes, a final order sustaining the right to expropriate may be appealed, but the appeal does not stop the court from determining just compensation. Once the order is issued, the government generally cannot dismiss or discontinue the case except on terms the court finds just and equitable.
What the law says
If the objections to and the defenses against the right of the plaintiff to expropriate the property are overruled, or when no party appears to defend as required by this Rule, the court may issue an order of expropriation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property sought to be expropriated, for the public use or purpose described in the complaint, upon the payment of just compensation to be determined as of the date of the taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first.
Rule 67, Section 4 — Order of expropriation. Read the full provision →
When the order of expropriation issues
An order of expropriation is issued once the owner's objections and defenses against the government's right to expropriate are overruled, or when no one appears to defend the property as the Rule requires. The order declares that the plaintiff has a lawful right to take the property for the public use or purpose described in the complaint. That declaration is expressly conditioned on payment of just compensation, so the right to take is never separated from the duty to pay for it.
How just compensation gets anchored in time
Compensation is not left to be determined at some arbitrary later date; the order ties it to the date of taking of the property or the filing of the complaint, whichever came first, so the valuation reflects the property's worth at that fixed point rather than a value affected by delay in the proceedings. That fixed reference date is what the commissioners later use as their valuation anchor.
Appeal does not stop compensation, and dismissal becomes restricted
A final order sustaining the right to expropriate can be appealed by any aggrieved party, but that appeal does not prevent the court from continuing to determine just compensation. And once the order of expropriation is rendered, the plaintiff is no longer free to dismiss or discontinue the proceeding except on terms the court considers just and equitable, since the defendant has by then already lost the fight over whether the taking may happen at all.
Why dismissal becomes restricted at this point
Before the order of expropriation issues, the government retains more freedom to walk away from the case. Once the right to expropriate is confirmed, though, allowing free dismissal would let the plaintiff string the defendant along through the fight over the right to take and then abandon the case, leaving the defendant's property clouded without compensation — which is exactly what the just-and-equitable-terms requirement guards against.
Related provisions
- Rule 67, Section 4 — Order of expropriation
- Rule 67, Section 1 — The complaint
- Rule 67, Section 7 — Report by commissioners and judgment thereupon