Court Opinion

ID: 9509745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:49:11.499847+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:52.794025
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON
specially concurs.
While I do not necessarily agree with all that is stated in our opinion, under the circumstances of this case, I conclude that we have reached the appropriate result. "While the Vanimans contend on this appeal that the District Court exceeded our remand order in Vaniman I, by excising the Chamber’s participation in, and its portion of the building from, the project, nevertheless, I conclude that appellants are in no position to complain.
As we pointed out in our opinion in Vaniman I, appellant Cecilia Vaniman conceded at the outset that the State had the authority to condemn the entire 8.712 acre parcel of property for the purpose of constructing a rest area and visitor center; that even if the Chamber were not part of the project, the entire acreage would nevertheless be condemned; and that she had no objection to the project but simply to the Chamber’s involvement in it. Vaniman, 869 P.2d at 793.
Accordingly, I specially concur.
JUSTICE GRAY concurs in the foregoing special concurrence.