Home/Supreme Court of Kansas/Riddle v. State Highway Commission

Riddle v. State Highway Commission

339 P.2d 301, 184 Kan. 603, 1959 Kan. LEXIS 357
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedMay 16, 1959
Docket41,235
StatusPublished
Cited by53 cases

This text of 339 P.2d 301 (Riddle v. State Highway Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Riddle v. State Highway Commission, 339 P.2d 301, 184 Kan. 603, 1959 Kan. LEXIS 357 (kan 1959).

Opinions

[605]*605The opinion of the court was delivered by

Fatzer, J.:

This was an eminent domain proceeding commenced by the State Highway Commission (commission) to acquire a right of way for the relocation of U. S. Highway 24 as a controlled access highway through Calhoun Bluffs northeast of Topeka. The landowners, Francis M. and Lucile G. Riddle (plaintiffs) appealed to the district court from the award of the appraisers. The commission did not appeal. Following a trial by a jury on March 5th and 6th, 1958, the plaintiffs were awarded damages in the amount of $23,887. The commission has appealed from that judgment and the order overruling its motion for a new trial. Specifications of error are hereafter noted.

Plaintiffs were the owners of a rectangular tract of land containing 6.82 acres upon which was located their home and a six-unit motel which they had profitably operated for a number of years. The south side of their premises abutted old U. S. Highway 24, a transcontinental highway carrying a great amount of through traffic, to which the plaintiffs and patrons of their motel had direct access at several points. The north or-rear portion of the property was not used in connection with the motel, but was wooded, making a scenic site for the motel and plaintiffs’ residence. For purpose of clarity the area involved is shown by the following map.

On May 21, 1957, the commission filed its petition for the condemnation of several lots and parcels of land, including 4.32 acres off the back or north portion of the plaintiffs’ property for the construction of the new highway. Although their remaining property abuts upon the new highway, due to its controlled access feature, the plaintiffs have no right of access. When completed, the new highway will be on a high graded elevation and users will be able to see only the roof of the motel for a short distance, and, if they become aware of its location, may reach it only by leaving the new highway at a diamond shaped interchange 600 feet east of the property, or at a crossover one and one-half miles west — where, from either point, the motel is not visible.

The home and motel are located on the remaining 2.5 acres of land; no severance was occasioned by the condemnation, and neither was disturbed. The old highway will not be physically changed but will remain open to public travel and plaintiffs- will [607]*607continue to have the same access to it as prior to the condemnation; the motel will face the same highway it always did and its patrons will have the same approach they always had, however, the major portion of the traffic, instead of passing in front of the motel, will travel upon the new highway at the rear. Thus, for all practical purposes, due to the diversion of traffic occasioned by the establishment of the new highway and denial of direct access thereto, the use of the property as a motel will be greatly curtailed.

[606]*606

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

Related

State v. Sisson
351 P.3d 1235 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2015)
Hall v. State Ex Rel. South Dakota Department of Transportation
2011 S.D. 70 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2011)
Department of Transportation v. Tomkins
749 N.W.2d 716 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2008)
Campbell v. Summit Plaza Associates
192 P.3d 465 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2008)
City of Roeland Park v. Jasan Trust
132 P.3d 943 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 2006)
City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp.
971 P.2d 1189 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1999)
County of Anoka v. Blaine Building Corp.
566 N.W.2d 331 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1997)
Sebree v. Board of County Commissioners
840 P.2d 1125 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1992)
Robert J. v. Board of County Commissioners
829 P.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1992)
State v. Risjord
819 P.2d 638 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1991)
Hudson v. City of Shawnee
790 P.2d 933 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1990)
A. B. Hudson & Fairway Oil, Inc. v. City of Shawnee
777 P.2d 800 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1989)
State Highway Com'n v. McDonalds Corp.
509 So. 2d 856 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1987)
Small v. Kemp
727 P.2d 904 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1986)
Busch v. City of Augusta
674 P.2d 1054 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1983)
Spurling v. Kansas State Park & Resources Authority
636 P.2d 182 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1981)
Hill v. City of Lawrence
582 P.2d 1155 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1978)
Morehead v. State Dept. of Roads
236 N.W.2d 623 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1975)
Narciso v. State
328 A.2d 107 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1974)
County of Winnebago v. Rico Corp.
296 N.E.2d 867 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
339 P.2d 301, 184 Kan. 603, 1959 Kan. LEXIS 357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/riddle-v-state-highway-commission-kan-1959.