Lipson v. Colorado State Dept. of Highways
| Decision Date | 07 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-635,78-635 |
| Citation | 41 Colo.App. 568,588 P.2d 390 |
| Parties | Raymond S. LIPSON and Irwin M. Suson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COLORADO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS, State Highway Commission, Edward Haase, not Individually but as Chief Engineer of the Highway Division of the State Department of Highways, Carroll Quelland, M. F. Carney, Patio Motel, a Colorado Corporation, d/b/a the Goblet Lounge, Pyne, Inc., a Colorado Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. . I |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Berenbaum, Weinberger & Susman, Charles P. Leder, Denver, for plaintiffs-appellants.
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Sol. Gen., Thomas W. Gibb, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendants-appellees.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the trial court dismissing their complaint seeking damages for inverse condemnation. We affirm.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint in inverse condemnation alleging: (1) that the Colorado Department of Public Highways had determined that it would be necessary, desirable and to the best interest of the people if a portion of plaintiffs' property be taken for public use in the expansion of South Santa Fe Drive and the construction of an overpass on Belleview over South Santa Fe Drive; (2) that the defendant had publicized that an overpass would be constructed, which has made the sale or development of the property impossible; and (3) that the defendant has prepared maps showing such construction and commenced procedural processes required to obtain the necessary permits, approvals, and funding from the United States Government, and that as a result, even though they still hold the fee ownership, the property of the plaintiffs has been taken for public use without just compensation.
Upon motion by the Department of Highways, plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed. Plaintiffs contend that, while the fee ownership of the land remains in them, the defendant's announced intention to acquire the property amounts to a taking of property for public purposes without compensation as prohibited by the Colorado Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 15.
In considering a motion to dismiss a plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must view the allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Bell v. Arnold, 175 Colo. 277, 487 P.2d 545 (1971).
In City of Buffalo v. J. W. Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241, 321 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Northglenn v. Grynberg
...beneficial uses of real property to the common good, owner has suffered a taking). See also Lipson v. Colorado State Dep't of Highways, 41 Colo.App. 568, 569, 588 P.2d 390, 391 (1978) (quoting City of Buffalo v. J.W. Clement Co., 28 N.Y.2d 241, 321 N.Y.S.2d 345, 269 N.E.2d 895 (1971)) (requ......
-
G&A Land, LLC v. City of Brighton
...that have interfered with their dominion over the properties. Landowners concede the holding in Lipson v. Colorado State Department of Highways, 41 Colo.App. 568, 588 P.2d 390, 391-92 (1978), is damaging to their case. But they contend that Lipson was wrongly decided; that it contains no re......
-
U.S. West Communications, Inc. v. City of Longmont
...Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1018-19, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 2894-95, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992)). See also Lipson v. Colorado State Dep't of Highways, 41 Colo.App. 568, 569, 588 P.2d 390, 391 (1978) (explaining that de facto taking requirements are the condemnor's physical entry, a physical ouster of the ......
-
City of Colo. Springs v. Andersen Mahon Enterprises
...was not compensable. The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss, concluding that under Lipson v. Colorado State Department of Highways, 41 Colo.App. 568, 588 P.2d 390 (1978), which the court deemed analogous to this case, the City's precondemnation conduct was not, as a matter of ......
-
Chapter 35 - § 35.2 • EMINENT DOMAIN UNDER STATE LAW
...992 P.2d 1188 (Colo. App. 1999).[78] City of Northglenn v. Grynberg, 846 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1993); Lipson v. Colo. State Dep't of Highways, 588 P.2d 390 (Colo. App. 1978); Claassen v. City & County of Denver, 30 P.3d 710 (Colo. App. 2000).[79] Scott v. County of Custer, 178 P.3d 1240 (Colo. Ap......
-
Status of Landowner's Property Slated for Condemnation
...46 Colo. 60, 102 P. 1061 (1909); Williams v. County Comm'rs of Routt County, 48 Colo. 541, 111 P. 71 (1910). 26. Supra, note 24. 27. 41 Colo.App. 568, 588 P.2d 390 (1978). 28. See generally, Annot., 37 ALR3d 127. 29. 42 Colo.App. 154, 595 P.2d 694 (1979). 30. No. 81CA1137 (Colo.App., July 1......
-
Regulatory Takings Involving Property Rights
...18. 791 F.2d 893 (Fed.Cir. 1986). 19. Id. at 904. 20. Id. 21. 7 Ct.Cl. 688 (1985). 22. Id. 23. 212 Ct.Cl. 375 (1977). 24. Id. at 389. 25. 588 P.2d 390, 391 (Colo.App. 1978). 26. Mosher v. City of Boulder, 225 F.Supp. 32, 35 (D.Colo. 1964). 27. LaPlata Elec. Ass'n Inc. v. Cummins, 728 P.2d 6......