Whether a settlement agreement in an eminent domain case violates the just compensation clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a settlement agreement in an eminent domain case with three parties and two of the parties agreed to a settlement between them, that did not include the other party, violates the just compensation clause of : the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution for the other party, requiring declaratory relief be entered in favor of the other party. \\ ii RELATED CASES 2002-CP-400-4800 South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., Case No: 2002CP-400-4800, State of South Carolina, County of Rich_land, Court of Common pleas, Judgment entered March 11, 2005. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., Opinion Case No: 2006-UP-360, In the South Carolina Court of Appeal, Opinion entered October 23, 2006. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., In the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Certiorari Denied October 18, 2007. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., Case No: 2002-CP400-4800, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of Common pleas, Judgment entered January , 28, 2008 and February 5, 2008. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., Opinion Case No: 2009-UP-228, In the South Carolina Court of Appeal, Opinion entered May 27, 2009. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., In the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Certiorari Denied January 7, 2010. y iii RELATED CASES Continued South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith J. Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., Case No: 2002-CP400-4800, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of Common pleas, Judgment entered March 24, 2010. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., Appeal Dismissed, _ Case Tracking Number 2010165247, Trial Court Case No: 2002-CP-400-4800, In the South Carolina Court of Appeal, Order entered January 19, 2011. South Carolina Department of Transportation vs Keith Buckles and G.L. Buckles et al., In the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Certiorari Denied October 19, 2011. 2005-CP-400-6516 . G.L. Buckles as Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith Buckles vs Ronald Paul, Case No: 2005-CP400-6516, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of Common pleas, Judgment entered June 4, 2007. G.L. Buckles as Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith Buckles vs Ronald Paul, Opinion Case No: 2009-UP-226, In the South Carolina Court of Appeal, Opinion entered May 27, 2009. G.L. Buckles as Personal Representative of the Estate of Keith Buckles vs Ronald Paul, In the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Certiorari Denied January 11, 2010. ‘n iv RELATED CASES Continued 2006-CP-400-6410 Ronald I. Paul vs J. Charles Ormond, Jr., et al. Case No: 2006-CP-400-6410, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of Common pleas, Judgment entered December 5, 2007. Ronald I. Paul vs J. Charles Ormond, Jr., et al. Opinion Case No: 2009-UP-229, In the South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion entered May 27, 2009. Ronald I. Paul vs J. Charles Ormond, Jr., et al. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Certiorari Denied March 9, 2010. 2008-CP-400-1259 Ronald I. Paul vs South Carolina Department of Transportation et al., Case No: 2008-CP-400-1259, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, Court of Common pleas, Judgment entered March 25, 2009. Ronald I. Paul vs South Carolina Department of Transportation et al., Opinion Case No: 2010-UP-504, In the South Carolina Court of Appeal, Opinion entered November 19, 2010. Ronald I. Paul vs South Carolina Department of Transportation et al., In the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Certiorari Denied October 19, 2011. Ronald I. Paul vs South Carolina Department of Transportation, et al., Petition No: 11-7921, In the Supreme y v RELATED CASES -—