TEXAS SUPREME COURT RULES OWNER ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION IF HE HAS NO REASONABLE ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY, BUT COMPENSATION IS NOT PAYABLE IF ACCESS TO ONE STREET IS CUT OFF BUT HE RETAINS ACCESS TO ANOTHER STREET

IN THE FIRST CASE, THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER FRONTED ON A STREET WITH FULL ACCESS. THE CITY OF WACO CONSTRUCTED A VIADUCT 14 FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING STREET, AND AS A RESULT LEFT THE BUILDING FRONTING ON A CUL-DE-SAC UNDER THE VIADUCT. IT WAS POSSIBLE TO GET TO THE BUILDING BY A LONG AND CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. IN THE SECOND CASE, THE PROPERTY OF A BUSINESS WAS LOCATED ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE BUILDING IN THE FIRST CASE BUT WITH A FRONTING AND ACCESS TO ANOTHER STREET. IN THE FIRST CASE, THE SUPREME COURT POINTED OUT THAT THE STATE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE DAMAGED FOR A PUBLIC USE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION. SINCE THE PRIMARY QUESTION CONCERNED WHETHER ACCESS RIGHTS HAD BEEN IMPAIRED AS TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO PROPERTY FOR A PUBLIC USE, THE COURT DECIDED TO AWARD THE OWNER THE AMOUNT THE PROPERTY HAD DECREASED IN VALUE AS A RESULT OF THE IMPAIRMENT OF ACCESS. IN THE SECOND CASE, THE COURT RULED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD NOT BEEN DEPRIVED OF REASONABLE ACCESS. (DUPY V. CITY OF WACO, 396 S.W. 2D 103, OCTOBER 1965) (ARCHENHOLD AUTO. SUPPLY CO. V. CITY OF WACO, 396 S.W. 2D 111, OCTOBER 1965)

  • Supplemental Notes:
    • No 28, pp 1-2
  • Publication Date: 1966-6

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00238599
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Feb 10 1994 12:00AM