Legal Opinion · Dissent

Colberg, Inc. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks.

California Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1967No. Sac. 7694Published

1DissentPeters, J.

I dissent.

I cannot agree that because the state wants to build two low-level highway bridges across the mouth of an inlet where plaintiffs’ shipyards are located, plaintiffs must suffer the complete loss caused by the impairment of their right of one-way water access to deep water. Principles of fairness, logic and public policy suggest that this loss is a part of the cost of the freeway that should not be borne by plaintiffs but should be borne by the public. Compensation should therefore be allowed.

The access impaired here is one-way access to the oceans of the world. Such access is…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. Gilman v. PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
  2. Scranton v. WheelerSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. People v. RicciardiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  5. Bacich v. Board of ControlCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API