Moreton Rolleston, Jr. Living Trust v. DOT

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that impaired visibility of a nonconforming billboard from a highway due to the construction of a bridge does not constitute a taking and the \fact that [an owner] uses its property in a particular commercial manner does not change this result\
• concluding that impaired visibility of a nonconforming billboard from a highway due to the construction of a bridge does not constitute a taking and the \fact that [an owner] uses its property in a particular commercial manner does not change this result\
• “Impaired visibility by a certain flow of traffic, without more, does not constitute a taking or damaging of property that would entitle the [plaintiff] to compensation. . . .”
• “Impaired visibility by a certain flow of traffic, without more, does not constitute a taking or damaging of property that would entitle the [plaintiff] to compensation. . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).