Legal Opinion

Speight v. Lockhart

Court of Appeals of Tennessee

Decided February 28, 1975PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

TODD, Judge.

In this eminent domain proceeding, there was a taking of a strip 25 feet in depth across the entire 785 feet frontage of defendant’s land for the purpose of widening State Highway 56. In addition, a 1,000 square foot drainage easement was impressed upon the remainder of the tract. The jury awarded $1,750.00 for the property taken and $5,000.00 for incidental damages to the remainder. Both parties have appealed.

In the Trial Court and in this Court, issues arise from the plans for widening the highway which provide only one entrance to defendant’s property from the highway…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. City of San Antonio v. Pigeonhole Parking of Texas, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Anzalone v. Metropolitan District CommissionMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
  3. Schopp v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
  4. Mueller v. NJ Highway AuthorityNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1960
  5. Hamilton County v. RapeTennessee Supreme Court · 1898

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. Thomas Dodd and Doris Dodd v. Hood River County, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, and State of Oregon, Defendant-Intervenor-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  3. Shelby County v. BardenTennessee Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Blevins v. Johnson CountyTennessee Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. Commissioner of the Department of Transportation ex rel. Davidson County v. VanattaCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1986

4 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