Home/California Court of Appeal/People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Ward

People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Ward

258 Cal. App. 2d 15, 65 Cal. Rptr. 508, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 2382
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedJanuary 17, 1968
DocketCiv. 11513
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 258 Cal. App. 2d 15 (People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Ward) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People Ex Rel. Department of Public Works v. Ward, 258 Cal. App. 2d 15, 65 Cal. Rptr. 508, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 2382 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

FRIEDMAN,

Defendants Ward are landowners who appeal from a judgment fixing damages in an eminent domain action. The suit was brought by the State Department of Public Works to acquire a triangular-shaped parcel of about six acres, leaving the Wards with 46.5 acres; to extinguish a permanent easement of access between the Wards' remaining land and the neighboring freeway (Interstate 5), which had been created by a 1951 agreement between the state and the Wards’ predecessors; providing the Wards, however, a right of access to a nearby county road in lieu of that easement. One of the issues in the lawsuit was the physical configuration of the permanent easement being extinguished. The Wards asserted an easement permitting relatively direct travel between their land and the freeway. The state sought -to establish a more circuitous route. The trial judge agreed with the state and, in the valuation trial, instructed the jury accordingly. Configuration of the easement is the sole issue on appeal. The issue turns on interpretation of a" 1951 deed and an accompanying contract between the former landowners and the state.

*17 Interstate 5 (former U.S. 99) extends north and south in Shasta County just north of Redding. The Wards’ land lies to its east. Shasta Dam Boulevard extends westerly from the opposite side of Interstate 5 and originally formed a T-shaped intersection with the latter. In 1951 the state bought approximately 25 acres east of U.S. 99 from the Wards’ predecessors for the purpose of freeway construction and ultimately to provide a site for a future traffic interchange with Shasta Dam Boulevard. The state and the landowners desired to provide the latter with some form of access between their remaining property and the freeway. Initially Shasta Dam Boulevard traffic would leave and enter U.S. 99 at grade; ultimately, however, a grade separation or overpass would be built to accommodate traffic entering and leaving Shasta Dam Boulevard. The 1951 grant deed to the state and the accompanying contract contained provisions designed to provide the landowners with temporary access to the freeway before construction of the grade separation structure and with permanent access at another location after the grade separation had been constructed. 1 These documents were prepared by the Division of Highways.

*18 The present lawsuit was brought in 1965 primarily to acquire additional property for the overpass foreseen in 1951. As designed by the state’s engineers after 1951, the overpass would originate in two roads (one for entry and one for exit) taking off from the easterly lane of Interstate 5 at a northeasterly angle. These would converge into a two-lane, two-way ramp curving upward and westerly into an overpass extending across the freeway to Shasta Dam Boulevard. The landowner’s “permanent” access point, as fixed by the 1951 transaction, lies opposite the westerly-curving arc of the ramp. The following diagram, not drawn to scale, shows the *19 general configuration of the overpass structure designed by the state, the location of the Wards’ remaining property, the 20-foot opening of the permanent easement described by the 1951 documents, and the substitute access route offered by the state in the present action:

*18

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

Related

Leeor Builders v. Forehand CA2/4
California Court of Appeal, 2022
Cleveland v. Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research Ltd
S.D. California, 2020
Cassinos v. Union Oil Co.
14 Cal. App. 4th 1770 (California Court of Appeal, 1993)
Foster v. United States
607 F.2d 943 (Court of Claims, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
258 Cal. App. 2d 15, 65 Cal. Rptr. 508, 1968 Cal. App. LEXIS 2382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-department-of-public-works-v-ward-calctapp-1968.