Court Opinion

ID: 9688874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:10:20.992526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:42.782405
License: Public Domain

AkriNgtoN, Justice,
Dissenting:
With deference, I disagree. In the majority opinion it is stated: “To the south and east of this non-access highway, there are 34 acres which are separated from the remaining 84 acres of the place to the west of the highway. Although the Commission is condemning access rights, there would be a permissive user of a viaduct under the highway from the western 84 to the eastern 34 acres. However, since the use is permissive only, the effect of the highway is to cut off access to the east tract, which is bounded on its east side by the Mississippi State Hospital at Ellisville. Hence, looking at the matter most favorably to appellees, the Highway *898Commission, is condemning a right of way of 20 acres, and cutting off appellees’ access to the 34 acres east of the highway.”
I do not think that the permissive nse is of any value whatsoever. In the trial of this case it was suggested by the court that counsel for appellant could amend its petition to allow permissive use, whereupon counsel for the Commission stated to the court, “No, sir, we are condemning right of access.” Thus it can he seen that the permissive use amounts to nothing, because it could be withdrawn at any time. I am of the opinion that the appellees were entitled to damages in the sum of at least $20,000.
Hall, J., Joins in this dissent.