Legal Opinion · Concurrence

C & G, Inc. v. Canyon Highway District No. 4

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided July 29, 2003No. 28128Published

1Concurrence

Justice Pro Tem HOHNHORST,

specially concurring.

Like Judge Schwartzman, I concur fully in the majority opinion. I also join in his special concurrence. I write separately only for the purpose of pointing out that invasive, uncompensated takings which entail the construction of public improvements on private property have distinct characteristics which set them apart from both non-invasive and so-called “regulatory” takings. There are sound practical and policy reasons for recognizing these distinctions. This case presents a classic example of these differences and serves to readily explain why…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  2. Alva A. Aaron v. The United States. Peter Andersen v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963
  3. Tibbs v. City of SandpointIdaho Supreme Court · 1979
  4. Farber v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Aaron v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1963

8 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