8,960 Square Feet, More or Less v. State, Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Chief Justice.
This case arises on appeal from the grant of a'motion for summary judgment. The ruling below was based on the premise that in an eminent domain proceeding to determine just compensation, “loss of visibility is not compensable as a matter of law.” We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
Dimond D Properties and Dimond D Developers (Dimond D) own a tract of land in Anchorage, the Dimond D Development Subdivision. The eastern half of the subdivision (Block 2) is bounded on the north by Dimond Boulevard, on the west by Dimond D…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
- Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Murphy, Inc. v. Town of WestportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
- DeLisio v. Alaska Superior CourtAlaska Supreme Court · 1987
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- Shriver v. City of OkobojiSupreme Court of Iowa · 1997
- State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. StromSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Police Department Employees Ass'nAlaska Supreme Court · 1992
- Anchorage v. SandbergAlaska Supreme Court · 1993
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.