Home/Court of Appeals of Arizona/Ortega v. State Ex Rel. Herman

Ortega v. State Ex Rel. Herman

432 P.2d 904, 6 Ariz. App. 356, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 581
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedNovember 2, 1967
Docket1 CA-CIV 245
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 432 P.2d 904 (Ortega v. State Ex Rel. Herman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ortega v. State Ex Rel. Herman, 432 P.2d 904, 6 Ariz. App. 356, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 581 (Ark. Ct. App. 1967).

Opinion

STEVENS, Judge.

The basic issues presented to the Court relate to the matter of severance damages in connection with the construction of a limited access interstate highway which was not constructed on the old right-of-way and which new highway bisects the land of the owners. The condemnor is the State of Arizona. The condemnees are Mr. and Mrs. Ortega who are the appellants in this Court. Mr. and Mrs. Ortega will be referred to as the “owners”.

Lupton, Arizona, lies just westerly from the State line of the State of New Mexico. At the location of the property in question, U.S. Highway 66, which is the old highway, runs generally northeasterly and southwesterly. The new highway, which is Interstate 40, roughly parallels U.S. 66 and is northerly therefrom. The land of the owners is patented land and patented land in this area is the exception rather than the rule.

The complaint in condemnation seeks title to the land over which the new right-of-way will pass,

“ * * * together with all access rights appurtenant and incident to the remaining real property abutting on the State right of way as are required to effectuate said resolution, reserving, however, to the defendant owners, their heirs, successors and assigns access to the two-way frontage road parallel and adjacent to the course described * * * which frontage road will be connected to the main thoroughfare of the Interstate Highway at the Lupton Interchange; and further reserving to the defendant owners, their heirs, successors and assigns access to a double 10-foot by 10-foot concrete drainage structure under the highway * * * for the privilege of moving livestock, equipment, machinery, vehicles and pedestrians, beneath said highway.”

*358 An illustrative diagram was incorporated in the opening brief of the appellants and it is reproduced as a part of this opinion. The diagram shows the after situation. In the *359 before situation the north remainder and the south remainder were one contiguous parcel of land. In the after situation the two remaining parcels were effectively separated from each other. To the east of the north remainder across private land without easements or right of use, there is a bladed strip having the appearance of a roadway. The area in the map wherein numerous dots have been placed is a wash with generally steep banks. The culvert under Interstate 40 consists of two concrete drainage structures each of which is 10 ft. wide and 10 ft. high. Under limited circumstances these drainage structures may be utilized as a means of travel between the south remainder and the north remainder. There is an interchange approximately 1450 feet east of the owner’s property affording access to and from Interstate 40 whereby one can reach U.S. 66 and can also reach the bladed so-called roadway which runs to the north remainder.

*358 GPZIp4bxI

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

Related

Kassman v. Busfield Enterprises, Inc.
639 P.2d 353 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1981)
Mobile Home Sales Management Inc. v. Brown
562 P.2d 1378 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1977)
Home Indemnity Company v. Bush
513 P.2d 145 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Tryon v. Naegle
510 P.2d 768 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Moser v. Mardian Construction Company
509 P.2d 1064 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
Baker v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co.
464 P.2d 974 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)
Cracchiolo v. State
435 P.2d 726 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
432 P.2d 904, 6 Ariz. App. 356, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ortega-v-state-ex-rel-herman-arizctapp-1967.