Legal Opinion · Dissent

Triangle, Inc. v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided September 4, 1981No. 4811Published

1DissentConnor, Justice

I agree with the majority opinion except as it relates to damages for loss of access.

The majority misconstrues the nature of available damages in an eminent domain action. Under Alaska statutes, where there is a partial taking of land, as occurred here, compensation is due both for the value of the parcel taken and for the resulting damage to the remainder:

“For the purpose of assessing compensation and damages, ... its actual value ... is the measure of compensation of the property to be actually taken, and the basis of damages to property not actually taken but injuriously affected in the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Hurley v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Stefan Auto Body v. State Highway CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. State v. HammerAlaska Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Dash v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Wilson & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1975

24 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