Schnider v. State

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtGIBSON
Citation241 P.2d 1,38 Cal.2d 439,43 A.L.R.2d 1068
Decision Date21 February 1952
Parties, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068 SCHNIDER et ux. v. STATE. L. A. 21672.

Page 1

241 P.2d 1
38 Cal.2d 439, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068
SCHNIDER et ux.
v.
STATE.
L. A. 21672.
Supreme Court of California, in Bank.
Feb. 21, 1952.

[38 Cal.2d 441] Reuben Rosensweig and Irl D. Brett, Los Angeles, for appellants.

Robert E. Reed, Sacramento, George C. Hadley, John N. McLaurin, Herbert J. Williams, Los Angeles, Harry S. Fenton, Sacramento, and Albert J. Day, Los Angeles, for respondent.

GIBSON, Chief Justice.

This inverse condemnation proceeding was brought by plaintiffs to recover damages for the taking of claimed rights of access to Olympic Boulevard, a state highway in the city of Santa Monica. In 1945 the California Highway Commission adopted a resolution authorizing the reconstruction of a portion of the boulevard as a

Page 2

limited freeway. The ares here involved as it appeared at that time is shown by the accompanying map.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

In 1947 plaintiffs purchased lots 127 and 130, which did not abut on the boulevard until it was subsequently widened for use as a freeway. Prior to that time lots 128 and 129, which were acquired by the state from other persons for highway purposes, intervened between plaintiffs' property and the boulevard. The construction of the freeway was commenced about March 1, 1948, and some time thereafter the state erected a fence along the common boundary line between plaintiffs' property and the freeway, thereby barring direct access from one to the other.

Plaintiffs obtained a judgment for damages due to changes in the grade, which included compensation for loss of access to Olympic Boulevard by way of cross streets bordering upon [38 Cal.2d 442] plaintiffs' lots. The trial court, however, refused to allow plaintiffs compensation for the loss of an asserted right of direct access, and they have appealed from the portion of the judgment which denied them such recovery.

It is clear from the record that there was no right of direct access to Olympic Boulevard from lots 127 and 130 when the resolution of the California Highway Commission was adopted. It is also clear that such a right did not arise upon the acquisition of the intervening property by the state for highway purposes. Accordingly, we are not concerned with a situation in which the owner of property abutting upon a conventional highway is deprived of direct access when it is rebuilt as a freeway. Nor does this case involve the question of what rights of access plaintiffs would have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Sanctity of Human Life Network v. Chp, No. C032534.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 2003
    ...sense, streets are built and maintained to serve the public as well as abutting property owners. (Schnider v. State of California (1952) 38 Cal.2d 439, 443, 241 P.2d 1; People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Wilson (1994) 25 Cal. App.4th 977, 982, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 52.) Members of the publi......
  • St. Clair County v. Bukacek, 7 Div. 447
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 23, 1961
    ...element of damage. Page 693 The same principle was enunciated in the City of Santa Monica in the case of Schnider, et ux. v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 3, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068, where the trial court refused to allow plaintiff compensation for the loss of an asserted right of direct asses......
  • Riddle v. State Highway Commission, No. 41235
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • May 16, 1959
    ...existed, there is no 'taking' of a right of access since such a right of access never in fact existed (Schnider v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S.W.2d 57; State Highway Commission [184 Kan.......
  • Brock v. State Highway Commission, No. 44029
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • August 19, 1965
    ...existed, there is no taking of a right of access since such right of access never in fact existed. See Schnider v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S.W.2d 57; State Highway Comm. v. Burk et al.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Sanctity of Human Life Network v. Chp, No. C032534.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 27, 2003
    ...sense, streets are built and maintained to serve the public as well as abutting property owners. (Schnider v. State of California (1952) 38 Cal.2d 439, 443, 241 P.2d 1; People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Wilson (1994) 25 Cal. App.4th 977, 982, 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 52.) Members of the publi......
  • St. Clair County v. Bukacek, 7 Div. 447
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 23, 1961
    ...element of damage. Page 693 The same principle was enunciated in the City of Santa Monica in the case of Schnider, et ux. v. State, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 3, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068, where the trial court refused to allow plaintiff compensation for the loss of an asserted right of direct asses......
  • Riddle v. State Highway Commission, No. 41235
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • May 16, 1959
    ...existed, there is no 'taking' of a right of access since such a right of access never in fact existed (Schnider v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S.W.2d 57; State Highway Commission [184 Kan.......
  • Brock v. State Highway Commission, No. 44029
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • August 19, 1965
    ...existed, there is no taking of a right of access since such right of access never in fact existed. See Schnider v. State of California, 38 Cal.2d 439, 241 P.2d 1, 43 A.L.R.2d 1068; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S.W.2d 57; State Highway Comm. v. Burk et al.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT