City of Wichita v. McDonald's Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that reply brief is appropriate forum to rebut new material raised in appellee's brief
• reviewing, de novo, whether a regulation of traffic flow to and from private property was a compensable taking
• reviewing, de novo, whether a regulation of traffic flow to and from private property was a compensable taking
• reviewing, de novo, whether a regulation of traffic flow to and from private property was a compensable taking
• “A reply brief is an inappropriate vehicle for raising additional issues.”
• “We hold, based on case law developed since the passage of K.S.A. 26-513, ‘access to the property remaining’ as used in K.S.A. 26-513[d][2] refers to a ‘right of access’ and not changes in traffic flow.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).