Peterman v. Department of Natural Resources

While I concur in the holding by the majority that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the unconstitutional taking of their fast land property,1 I respectfully dissent from part iii(d)(3) of the opinion in which the majority states that plaintiffs are also entitled to compensation for erosion of the beach below the high-water mark, i.e., nonfast property. Because the Court of Claims awarded *209damages for the loss of all property, I would remand to that court for an appropriate determination of damages resulting from the loss of plaintiffs’ fast lands only.

i

As the majority observes,…