Legal Opinion
State v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc.
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided March 4, 2009No. 82S01-0806-CV-308PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BOEHM, Justice.
In State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342 (1960), this Court held that roadway improvements that reduce or interfere with traffic flow to a commercial property do not constitute takings of a property right of the owner of the property. We reaffirm Emsley and hold that the shopping center owners are not entitled to consequential damages from street reconfigurations that affect traffic flow through the center and prevent expansion of existing points of ingress or egress, but leave existing points in place.
Facts and Procedural History
Kimeo owns the Plaza East Shopping…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Lingle v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Kelo v. City of New LondonSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Mack Phillips v. Montgomery County, TennesseeTennessee Supreme Court · 2014
- Tina Gerlach v. Todd RokitaCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2024
- Green River Motel Management of Dale, LLC v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2011
- Burkhart Advertising, Inc. v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009
- Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, and Co-Alliance, LLP and State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2019
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.