Shaw v. Lorenz
| Decision Date | 27 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 41548,41548 |
| Citation | 246 N.E.2d 285,42 Ill.2d 246 |
| Parties | William SHAW et al., Appellant, v. Francis LORENZ, Director of Highways, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Durr & Durr, and Paul E. Riley, Edwardsville, for appellant.
William G. Clark, Atty. Gen., Springfield , for appellees.
William and Earlene Shaw, who are the owners of a tract of land abutting U.S. Highway 66 and having access to that highway via a township road, brought an action in the circuit court of Madison County seeking to temporarily and permanently enjoin Francis Lorenz, Director of the Department of Public Works and Buildings, and Robert E. Kronst, District Highway Engineer, from taking, without prior condemnation proceedings, their alleged property right of access to U.S. Highway 66 by closing the township road at its intersection with that highway. Additionally, they sought a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to restore said road intersection which was then closed. Following a hearing, the trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The case was appealed directly to this court on the basis of the existence of a constitutional question. Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 110A, par. 302(a).
Plaintiffs alleged right of access is based upon an agreement between former owners of the property and the State, said to have been made at the time of negotiations between the State and the former owners, pursuant to which the State acquired a portion of the property. It is further alleged that as part of the consideration for that property acquisition the State agreed to keep open the township road providing the remaining property (now owned by plaintiffs) direct access to Highway 66.
The record indicates that as part of a program of upgrading U.S. Highway 66 to Federal interstate standards of limited access the defendants closed this township road thereby cutting off plaintiffs' access to U.S. Highway 66. The record is not clear as to whether this closing was discretionary with the defendants or a mandatory requirement of Federal interstate standards.
Plaintiffs presently are forced to travel a minimum of one and one half miles along a frontage road to gain vehicular access to Highway 66, where they previously had to travel no more than 100 feet over the township road. Plaintiffs had been using the property commercially for a motel, restaurant, trailer park and tavern and allege that the action of the defendants has reduced the use of the land to farm use because travelers will no longer patronize these establishments due to the inconvenience to the motorist in driving this additional distance to their property.
Defendants argue that in these circumstances plaintiff could have filed a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hiatt v. W. Plastics, Inc.
...Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Bowman, 229 Ill.2d 461, 470–71, 323 Ill.Dec. 311, 893 N.E.2d 583 (2008) (quoting Shaw v. Lorenz, 42 Ill.2d 246, 248, 246 N.E.2d 285 (1969) ). However, “[w]hile an appellee is not as limited in the scope of review as is an appellant, nevertheless, the revie......
-
Rehfield v. Diocese Joliet
...the trial court.’ " Beahringer v. Page , 204 Ill. 2d 363, 370, 273 Ill.Dec. 784, 789 N.E.2d 1216 (2003) (quoting Shaw v. Lorenz , 42 Ill. 2d 246, 248, 246 N.E.2d 285 (1969) ). The record before us provides a sufficient basis to determine whether defendant's argument has merit.¶ 32 The Whist......
-
People v. Jaudon
...was not previously advanced if the facts alleged in support of this contention were before the trial court. E.g., Shaw v. Lorenz, 42 Ill.2d 246, 248, 246 N.E.2d 285, 287 (1969); Hickey v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 35 Ill.2d 427, 439-40, 220 N.E.2d 415, 421 (1966); Dow v. Columbus-Cabrini M......
-
Stratman v. Brent
...Mortell v. Insurance Co. of North America, 165 Ill.App.3d 915, 921, 117 Ill.Dec. 496, 520 N.E.2d 847 (1988), citing Shaw v. Lorenz, 42 Ill.2d 246, 246 N.E.2d 285 (1969). Because the factual basis for the defense of common-law absolute privilege was contained in the plaintiff's third amended......