E-470 Public Highway Authority v. Revenig
Supreme Court of Colorado
1DissentJustice Kourlis
Article II, Section 15 of the Colorado Constitution demands that a landowner whose property is condemned receive “just compensation” for that property. Deducting from that payment some amount attributable to intangible benefits that may inure to a separate piece of property violates that guarantee of just compensation. Accordingly, in my view, section 38—1—114(2)(d), 10 C.R.S. (2003), is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in this case. Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
I. Under Colorado Law, the Statute is Unconstitutional
The issue we confront today is a…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- United States v. General Motors Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Bauman v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Phillips v. Washington Legal FoundationSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- United States v. ReynoldsSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.