State v. Fox, No. 34327

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtWEAVER; HILL
Citation53 Wn.2d 216,332 P.2d 943
PartiesThe STATE of Washington, Appellant, v. Helene M. FOX ex al.; C. K. Burress and Maude M. Burress, his wife; Marshall G. Burress and Lois Burress, his wife, Respondents.
Decision Date04 December 1958
Docket NumberNo. 34327

Page 216

53 Wn.2d 216
332 P.2d 943
The STATE of Washington, Appellant,
v.
Helene M. FOX ex al.; C. K. Burress and Maude M. Burress,
his wife; Marshall G. Burress and Lois Burress,
his wife, Respondents.
No. 34327.
Supreme Court of Washington, Department 1.
Dec. 4, 1958.

Page 217

[332 P.2d 944] John J. O'Connell, Edward E. Level, Lawrence D. Silvernale, Olympia, for appellant.

Ries & Kenison, Moses Lake, for respondents.

WEAVER, Justice.

The state of Washington appeals from a judgment entered after a jury verdict determining the amount of award to be paid respondents in an action of eminent domain.

Respondents own 18.86 acres of vacant land in the town of Westlake, Grant county, Washington. It abuts primary state highway No. 18 (U. S. 10) on the south for a distance of 1,652 feet.

Page 218

Respondents state in their brief that a public hearing was held on April 14, 1955, after due notice to property owners, as provided by RCW 47.52.072, a portion of the 'Limited Access Facilities' statute. July 26, 1955, the Washington state highway commission entered an order (a) establishing primary state highway No. 18, from Burke Junction to Moses Lake, as a limited-access highway; and (b), inter alia, approving new construction and access plans as they affected respondents' land. The record is silent whether there was any review of this order as provided in RCW 47.52.075.

November 28, 1956, the state filed its petition and notice in condemnation. December 14, 1956, pursuant to notice, the court entered an order adjudicating public use and necessity.

At the trial to determine the amount of respondents' award, the state introduced in evidence three large drawings that depict the effect the limited-access highway will have on respondents' land, and a large model (two by eight feet) that shows the existing highway in front of respondents' property and, by means of an 'overlay,' illustrates most graphically the four-lane highway, the land-service roads, and the 'clover leaf' or 'traffic interchange' that will be installed a short distance to the west of respondents' property.

Specifically, the plans disclose (1) that the state proposes to take a strip of respondents' land that abuts the existing highway at the northwest corner of the tract, that varies in width from ten to thirty feet, that is four hundred thirty-five feet long, and that has an approximate area of two tenths of an acre; (2) that respondents' right of access, light, view, and air to and from primary state highway No. 18 will be restricted, but respondents will have access to a two-way frontage service road to be constructed along the west three hundred thirty-five feet of their highway frontage. This east-west, two-way front-age road will lead to the east-west, four-[332 P.2d 945] lane, limited-access highway that will extend along the north boundary of respondents' property. It is apparent from the plans that respondents will not be able to leave their property and immediately make a left turn into the

Page 219

westbound traffic lanes of the four-lane limited-access highway, because a median strip is to be installed between the east and west lanes of traffic.

Respondents' right to compensation springs from (1) the loss of the strip of land, four hundred thirty-five feet long, containing approximately two tenths of an acre; (2) the prohibition of ingress and egress to and from the highway of the east one thousand three hundred seventeen feet of their property; and (3) damages, if any, suffered by reason of the change of method of ingress and egress of the west three hundred thirty-five feet of respondents' highway frontage.

The state's assignments of error fall into four categories: (1) The court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson, No. 2
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • 6 Diciembre 1966
    ...Eminent Domain § 18.42(1), pp. 240, 249 (3d ed. 1962); State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342 (1960); State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943 (1958); 26 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 160, pp. [4 Ariz.App. 426] Page 998 We believe it also to be well-established law that the property o......
  • State ex rel. Herman v. Schaffer, No. 9836--PR
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 26 Marzo 1970
    ...v. State of California, 97 Cal.App.2d 237, 217 P.2d 448; People v. Sayig, 101 Cal.App.2d 890, 226 P.2d 702; State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943; Springville Banking Co. v. Burton, 10 Utah 2d 100, 349 P.2d 157; Dept. of Public Works & Bldgs. v. Mabee, 22 Ill.2d 202, 174 N.E.2d See als......
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Union Planters Nat. Bank, No. 5-2004
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 28 Marzo 1960
    ...v. Schultz Co., 123 Cal.App.2d 925, 268 P.2d 117; Blumenstein v. City, 143 Cal.App.2d 264, 299 P.2d 347; State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943. Page For all practical purposes, Iowa State Highway Commission v. Smith, 248 Iowa 869, 82 N.W.2d 755, is directly in point with the case at ba......
  • State v. Miller, No. 27198.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 7 Diciembre 2016
    ...880, 880 (1973) (per curiam); Ehrhart v. Agency of Transp., 180 Vt. 125, 904 A.2d 1200, 1205–06 (2006) ; State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943, 946 (1958) ; State Hwy. Comm'n v. Scrivner, 641 P.2d 735, 738–39 (Wyo.1982) ; cf. State Dep't of Hwys., Div. of Hwys. v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • State ex rel. Herman v. Wilson, No. 2
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • 6 Diciembre 1966
    ...Eminent Domain § 18.42(1), pp. 240, 249 (3d ed. 1962); State v. Ensley, 240 Ind. 472, 164 N.E.2d 342 (1960); State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943 (1958); 26 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain § 160, pp. [4 Ariz.App. 426] Page 998 We believe it also to be well-established law that the property o......
  • State ex rel. Herman v. Schaffer, No. 9836--PR
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 26 Marzo 1970
    ...v. State of California, 97 Cal.App.2d 237, 217 P.2d 448; People v. Sayig, 101 Cal.App.2d 890, 226 P.2d 702; State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943; Springville Banking Co. v. Burton, 10 Utah 2d 100, 349 P.2d 157; Dept. of Public Works & Bldgs. v. Mabee, 22 Ill.2d 202, 174 N.E.2d See als......
  • Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Union Planters Nat. Bank, No. 5-2004
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 28 Marzo 1960
    ...v. Schultz Co., 123 Cal.App.2d 925, 268 P.2d 117; Blumenstein v. City, 143 Cal.App.2d 264, 299 P.2d 347; State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943. Page For all practical purposes, Iowa State Highway Commission v. Smith, 248 Iowa 869, 82 N.W.2d 755, is directly in point with the case at ba......
  • State v. Miller, No. 27198.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • 7 Diciembre 2016
    ...880, 880 (1973) (per curiam); Ehrhart v. Agency of Transp., 180 Vt. 125, 904 A.2d 1200, 1205–06 (2006) ; State v. Fox, 53 Wash.2d 216, 332 P.2d 943, 946 (1958) ; State Hwy. Comm'n v. Scrivner, 641 P.2d 735, 738–39 (Wyo.1982) ; cf. State Dep't of Hwys., Div. of Hwys. v. Davis, 626 P.2d 661, ......
  • 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