2000, J.D., University of Utah, Order of the Coif, Articles Editor, Utah Law Review
1997, B.A. Political Science, Brigham Young University
Utah State Bar
Shareholder
Justin Matkin is a member of the firm’s commercial litigation group with a practice emphasis on eminent domain litigation and real estate related matters. He has represented clients in more than 250 eminent domain matters including litigation seeking to condemn property for high voltage electrical transmission lines, highway and road expansions, utilities, railroad and light rail, dam and water treatment facilities, sewer, oil, gas, and water pipelines, airport expansions, avigation easements, billboards, and telecommunication facilities. While many of his clients are landowners facing condemnation of their property rights, Mr. Matkin also represents condemning authorities in eminent domain proceedings.
In 2010, Mr. Matkin served on Eminent Domain Subcommittee of the Model Utah Jury Instructions Committee to rewrite the model eminent domain jury instructions. He was included in The Best Lawyers in America® 2016-2023 editions for commercial litigation and litigation-real estate. Mr. Matkin also has been continually recognized for his expertise in eminent domain law by Mountain States Super Lawyers and for his proficiency in real estate and business litigation by Utah Business magazine’s Utah’s Legal Elite (2005-2018, 2020-2022).
From 2009 to 2012, Mr. Matkin was lead counsel for right-of-way acquisition to facilitate construction of a new petroleum products pipeline from Salt Lake City, Utah to Las Vegas, Nevada. From 2018 through 2022, Mr. Matkin has been eminent domain counsel for a large private company acquiring right-of-way for a new wind power high-voltage transmission line through Utah.
Mr. Matkin handles many real estate related matters, including easement and access issues, real estate purchase contracts, development agreements, zoning, land use, and water rights issues, among others. Mr. Matkin represents clients in litigation arising from these matters as well as in a wide range of general commercial litigation, intellectual property, and contract disputes.
In The News:
Trial Court Affirms $15 Million Judgment Against UDOT In Eminent Domain Case, June 2016
Appeals Court Upholds $15 Million Judgement Against UDOT in Eminent Domain Case 2018
Why the Utah Supreme Court interfered in a school district’s land sale, 2022
Reported Cases:
Khalsa v. Ward, 101 P. 3d 843 (Utah Ct. App 2004);
CCD, L.C. v. Millsap, 116 P.3d 366 (Utah 2005);
D’Elia v. Rice Development, Inc., 147 P. 3d 515 (Utah Ct. App. 2006);
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. AMSCO Windows, 921 F.Supp.2d 1226 (2013);
2014 WL 6679589 (10th Cir. Nov. 26, 2014);
Utah Department of Transportation v. Carlson, 332 P.3d 900 (Utah 2014);
Enervest, Ltd., v. Utah State Engineer and Michael Carlson, 2018 UT 55 (Utah Supreme Ct.);
UDOT v. LEJ Investments, LLC, 2018 Utah App 213 (Utah Ct. Appeals).
Cardiff Wales LLC v. Washington County School District, 2021 Utah App 035 (Utah Ct. Appeals).
Kodiak America LLC and Luczak v. Summit County, 2021 Utah App 217 (Utah Ct. Appeals).
Cardiff Wales v. Washington County School District, 2022 UT 19 (Utah Supreme Ct.).