Home/Texas Supreme Court/Archenhold Automobile Supply Co. v. City of Waco

Archenhold Automobile Supply Co. v. City of Waco

396 S.W.2d 111, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 41, 1965 Tex. LEXIS 239
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 13, 1965
DocketA-10642
StatusPublished
Cited by57 cases

This text of 396 S.W.2d 111 (Archenhold Automobile Supply Co. v. City of Waco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Archenhold Automobile Supply Co. v. City of Waco, 396 S.W.2d 111, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 41, 1965 Tex. LEXIS 239 (Tex. 1965).

Opinions

STEAKLEY, Justice.

This is a companion case to DuPuy v. The City of Waco this day decided, Tex., 396 S.W.2d 103. It is likewise a suit against the City for damages under Article I, Sec. 17, of the Constitution of Texas, Vernon’s Ann.St. resulting from the construction by the City of the South 17th Street viaduct. As in DuPuy, there was no physical appropriation of Petitioner’s property and as the case reaches us it involves only the impairment of access rights. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court for Petitioner, Archenhold Automobile Supply Company, based on the favorable jury verdict, and rendered judgment for the City; its holding was that “ * * * the construction of the viaduct by the City was a valid exercise of its police power, and since appellee has access to its property as herein stated, and has not been denied total access to its property, there is no taking, and the loss and inconvenience it may have sustained is noncompensable.” 386 S.W.2d 174, 180. We granted the application for writ of error in this case at the time of such action in DuPuy, and the cases were submitted together.

The physical facts pertaining to the property of Archenhold are depicted on the accompanying schematic diagram and are described in detail in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. In relation to the property of DuPuy considered in the companion case, the property of Archenhold is located immediately across what was South 17th Street. The major difference is that the Archenhold property extends to and fronts on Franklin Avenue, whereas the DuPuy property fronted on and had access to South 17th Street only. It may also be mentioned that the location of Archenhold’s building and the viaduct leaves Archenhold with a twenty-five-foot open space which is used for parking motor vehicles.

[113]*113

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Texas Department of Transportation v. FamFive Holdings, LLC
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2025
City of Austin, Texas v. 1811 Guadalupe LLC
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2024
Starbright Car Wash LLC v. City of Belton, Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2019
Laura Leticia Zepeda Vasquez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Jose Abraham Vasquez,Jr. v. Legend Natural Gas III, LP Legend Natural Gas, LLC Lewis Energy Group, LP And Lewis Petro Properties, Inc
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
State v. Momin Properties, Inc. and W & J Investments, Inc. D/B/A Gas "N" Stuff
409 S.W.3d 1 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)
Millwee-Jackson Joint Venture v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
350 S.W.3d 772 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
State v. Petropoulos
346 S.W.3d 525 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Smith v. City of League City
338 S.W.3d 114 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011)
Paul Smith v. City of League City, Texas
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2011
State v. Bristol Hotel Asset Co.
293 S.W.3d 170 (Texas Supreme Court, 2009)
State, Texas Department of Transportation v. Allodial Ltd. Partnership
280 S.W.3d 922 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
State v. Bhalesha
273 S.W.3d 694 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
State v. Badruddin Bhalesha and Samina Bhalesha
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
State v. Dawmar Partners, Ltd.
267 S.W.3d 875 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Burris v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County
266 S.W.3d 16 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
James R. Burris and Wheelchair & Scooter Express, L.L.C. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008
City of San Antonio v. TPLP Office Park Properties
218 S.W.3d 60 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
State v. Delany
197 S.W.3d 297 (Texas Supreme Court, 2006)
State v. George M. Delany and Patricia Ann Delany
Texas Supreme Court, 2006
County of Bexar v. Santikos
144 S.W.3d 455 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
396 S.W.2d 111, 9 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 41, 1965 Tex. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archenhold-automobile-supply-co-v-city-of-waco-tex-1965.