Hjorth v. Whittenburg
Utah Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
CROCKETT, Justice.
The question here involved is: Where the Utah State Road Commissioners acted in good faith to improve a highway, are they personally liable for consequential damages to adjacent property? We hold they are not.
In connection with certain improvements and changes in Highway U. S. 89, the grade of the road in front of the plaintiffs’ properties just south of Mapleton, Utah County, was raised substantially above the level of the contiguous ground ranging from zero to as much as four feet in one area. Where any of the property of adjoining landowners was actually taken in the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Wilkinson v. StateUtah Supreme Court · 1913
- Campbell Building Co. v. State Road CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1937
- State Ex Rel. State Road Commission v. District Court, Fourth Judicial Dist.Utah Supreme Court · 1937
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co v. CleggUtah Supreme Court · 1943
- Wilbrecht v. BabcockSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Colman v. Utah State Land BoardUtah Supreme Court · 1990
- Lyon v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 2000
- Behrens v. Raleigh Hills Hospital, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1983
- Springville Banking Co. v. BurtonUtah Supreme Court · 1960
- Utah State University of Agriculture & Applied Science v. Sutro & Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1982
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.