State Ex Rel. Miller v. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Arizona, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentKleinschmidt, Judge
I respectfully dissent. The majority accepts the rule that even though Gannett has a property interest that has real market value, the state may, in taking property, extinguish that interest without paying compensation for it. Whatever the weight of authority from other jurisdictions, in my opinion such a result is unfair and runs counter to the spirit of our own constitution, statutes, and our decisions which stress that just compensation requires the consideration of any factor that has a material bearing on the value of the property taken.
The state took a property interest from Gannett…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Almota Farmers Elevator & Warehouse Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Canterbury Realty Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
- Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. RomleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
- FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. HingCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Moschetti v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.