State Ex Rel. Herman v. Schaffer

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “there is gener ally more agreement that compensation is due where the limitation amounts to a complete destruction of the abutter’s practical access.”
• emphasizing that controlled-aceess highways are a “new concept, which was not fully recognized in our previous decisions”
• precluding compensation if “the ingress and egress to the limited-access highway as provided by a frontage road [is] not so circuitous as to be unreasonable”
• finding landowners’ “limitation of access” claim not compensable when their access to I — 10 via remaining frontage road “was not unreasonably circuitous”
• “[T]he State breached 12 its agreement and the measure of damages, if any, should be computed, in accordance with 13 the rule we have set forth herein, at the time that the breach occurred.”
• no measure of compensation may be calculated based on noncompensable factors, such as diversion of traffic or loss of customers, goodwill, income or profits — except to the extent that the highest and best use of the real estate in question is affected thereby

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).