Legal Opinion

City of Salem v. Merritt Truax, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 26, 1984No. 129,715; CA A29784PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.

Defendants appeal from a directed verdict entered against them on their inverse condemnation claim. We affirm.

Defendants own a corner lot in Salem, on which they operate a service station. As part of a street widening project, plaintiff condemned a narrow strip along one edge of defendants’ property and closed one of their three driveways.1 Defendants brought a claim for the damages caused by the driveway closure, alleging that their access had inversely been condemned. The trial court, however, determined that the closure was carried out pursuant to a valid exercise of the city’s police…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Oregon Investment Co. v. SchrunkOregon Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Boese v. City of SalemCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
  3. Argo Investment Corp. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1984

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gruner v. Lane CountyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1989
  2. State v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API