South Carolina State Highway Department v. Carodale Associates

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a landowner has no vested rights in the continuance of a public highway and in the continuation of maintenance of traffic flow past his property
• stating that a landowner has no vested rights in the continuance of a public highway and in the continuation of maintenance of traffic flow past his property
• “A landowner has no vested right in the continuance of a public highway.... [T]he State is under no duty to maintain a minimum level of traffic flow.”
• no private vested right in particular use of government property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).