Court Opinion

ID: 9531774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:14:27.115353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:34.708957
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(concurring in result in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the result on Issue 1 concerning notice. On Issue 2 — the constitutionali*232ty of the flood control ordinance, I agree that Fortier has failed to show any facts establishing the unconstitutionality of the ordinance. However, I would not hold that the flood control ordinance is constitutional in all aspects because those aspects have not been thoroughly considered in this case. 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 16 (1976).
On Issue 3 concerning inverse condemnation, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings or vacate the trial court ruling. My concern is this. If the rule concerning res judicata bars all matters tried and those that could have been tried, then, if left intact, the trial court ruling would prevent a subsequent inverse condemnation action if we simply decline to reach this issue in this case. Therefore, we should reverse the trial court’s ruling that there was no inverse condemnation and remand for determination based on evidence and damages, if any, or vacate that portion of said ruling entirely.