State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Brockfeld
| Decision Date | 15 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 31638,31638 |
| Citation | 395 S.W.2d 232 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, (Plaintiff) Appellant, v. G. A. BROCKFELD et al., Exceptions of Harold S. Stinson, Sr., Dorothy Bopp Stinson, David W. Stinson, Trustee, and Harold S. Stinson, Jr., (Defendants) Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert L. Hyder, Bruce A. Ring, Jefferson City, for (plaintiff) appellant.
Wehrle & Wehrle, Walter Wehrle, Clayton, A. H. Juergensmeyer, Warrenton, for (defendants) respondents.
In this condemnation action defendants recovered a verdict and judgment in the sum of $13,750 for the taking of a part of defendants' tract of land located on the south side of Route 40 in Warren County, having a frontage of approximately 640 feet in two segments, a parcel fronting in the approximate middle having been previously sold, and consisting of approximately 12.3 acres, on the western portion of which was located a motel. In the proceeding the plaintiff Highway Commission acquired a triangular tract of land in the northeast portion of the property and a long strip along the county road at the east side of defendants' property. No additional right-of-way was taken from the portion of defendants' property in front of the motel building. Plaintiff appealed, and the only point on appeal is the claimed error in giving Instruction No. 3 at the request of the defendants and in refusing plaintiff's requested Instruction No. 6.
Instruction No. 3, offered by defendants and given by the Court, is as follows:
'The Court instructs the jury that in determining just compensation to be paid to the defendants for the appropriation of their property by the plaintiff, as described in the evidence you may take into consideration the damages, if any, resulting to the remainder of defendants' whole tract of land by reason of the taking of defendants' right of access to U. S. Highway 40, existing on June 21, 1962 and by the construction of the limited access highway as described in the evidence.'
Instruction No. 6, offered by plaintiffs and refused by the Court, is as follows:
'The Court instructs the jury that in determining the amount of damages to which the Defendants are entitled for the taking of a part of their property by this proceeding, you may take into consideration the fact that Defendants will have no right of access between their property and the highway or its right-of-way along a portion of the front of their remaining property as described in evidence and the affect (sic) that has upon the value of Defendants' remaining property; however, you are instructed that you shall not award to Defendants, any damages nor allow to them any sum of money because of the fact that Defendants will not have access between their property and the thruways of said highway, if you find that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Herman v. Schaffer
...(Mo.) 388 S.W.2d 855, cert. den. Mohr v. State Highway Comm., 382 U.S. 846, 86 S.Ct. 79, 15 L.Ed.2d 86; State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Brockfeld (Mo.) 395 S.W.2d 232; McKenna v. State Highway Commission, 28 Wis.2d 179, 135 N.W.2d It is generally conceded that regulation of traffi......