City of San Antonio v. Easley
| Decision Date | 22 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 14129,14129 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 683 |
| Parties | CITY OF SAN ANTONIO et al., Appellants, v. Ralph V. EASLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Crawford B. Reeder, San Antonio, Waggoner Carr, Atty. Gen., T. B. Wright, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Ritchie, Ritchie & Crosland, Dallas, for appellants.
Schweppe, Schweppe & Allison, San Antonio, for appellee.
This suit was instituted by Ralph V. Easley against the City of San Antonio and others, seeking a permanent injunction prohibiting the City from erecting a continuous concrete median strip on Southwest Military, Drive in front of a restaurant operated by him. Such a strip would prevent vehicles being operated in an easterly direction on Southwest Military Drive from turning north so that they might reach plaintiff's place of business, as they have been accustomed to do, and would prevent traffic on Hilton Avenue moving south, from entering the south land of this drive.
The trial was to the court without the intervention of a jury and resulted in judgment granting the permanent injunction as prayed for, from which judgment the City and other defendants have prosecuted this appeal.
We hare insert a plat showing the proposed median strip and the effect it will have upon the traffic.
Appellee contends that the construction of the median strip would take his property without compensation, but when analyzed the only injury he will suffer is free access to traffic traveling east on Southwest Military Drive. It can readily be seen from the undisputed facts that the construction of the proposed median strip will only prevent east-bound traffic on Southwest Military Drive from turning left directly into appellee's restaurant or left into Hilton Avenue, and from leaving his restaurant and proceeding directly east on Southwest Military Drive. This may lessen the traffic which might reach his restaurant or, in any event, cause it to travel a circuitous route to reach his place of business. This is a 'Flow of Traffic' and not an 'Access' case.
As is said in 73 A.L.R.2d, p. 692, Sec. 3:
'Regulations and regulatory devices, applicable to all traffic, such as one-way streets, stop lights, stop lines, prohibitions against certain turns, etc., which merely impose some circuity of route upon the abutter, have been universally upheld against contentions that access was impaired.'
An abutting property owner has no vested interest in the traffic that passes in front of his property. Pennysavers Oil Co. v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 334 S.W.2d 546. In State of Texas v. Baker Bros. Nursery, Tex., 366 S.W.2d 212, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Griffin, said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Dunn, No. 82A01-0705-CV-223.
...262 N.C. 169, 136 S.E.2d 678 (1964); Gene's, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 259 N.C. 118, 129 S.E.2d 889 (1963); City of San Antonio v. Easley, 368 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Civ.App.1963); Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342; Northern Lights Shopping Center, Inc. v. State of New York, 20 A.D.2d 415, 24......
-
Wolf v. Com., Dept. of Highways
... ... to the highway. [7] See: McCrady Case, 399 Pa. 586, 160 ... A.2d 715; Laubach & Sons v. City of Easton, 347 Pa ... 542, [422 Pa. 40] 545, 32 A.2d 881; McCargo et al. v ... Evanson, 188 ... v. City of ... Charlotte, 259 N.C. 118, 129 S.E.2d 889 (1963); City ... of San Antonio v. Easley, Tex.Civ.App., 368 S.W.2d 683 ... (s963); State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. [422 Pa. 46] ... ...
-
State v. Frost
...58 S.W.2d 144, (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref.; Holbrook v. State, 355 S.W.2d 235, (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n.r.e.; City of San Antonio v. Easley, 368 S.W.2d 683, (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n.r.e. In City of Beaumont v. Marks, supra, it was 'It is well settled that abutting property owners, und......
-
Ker v. State
...City of Beaumont v. Marks, 443 S.W.2d 253 (Tex.1969); State v. Baker Bros. Nursery, 366 S.W.2d 212 (Tex.1963); City of San Antonio v. Easley, 368 S.W.2d 683 (Tex.Civ.App., San Antonio 1963, wr.ref. n.r.e.). There has been no deprivation of a pre-existing right of complete access to the rail......