Court Opinion

ID: 9720839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:42:48.751837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.579986
License: Public Domain

Larson, J.
(dissenting) — I respectfully dissent, for I feel the majority fail to consider the obvious injustice done plaintiffs by the Iowa State Highway Commission. We cannot escape the fact it did recognize the plaintiffs’ leasehold interest in that property. It could not and did not make them an offer of $300 damages upon any other basis. It cannot deny that plaintiffs left the premises under threats of forceful evacuation by the Commission’s agents. It cannot deny what everyone including the court knows, that with zoning restrictions in such a city it is not possible or feasible to await the bulldozer before seeking another suitable location for a store. That plaintiffs now should be penalized for an honest effort to mitigate their damages by promptly finding another location is unthinkable.
*581Regardless of the technical justification for denying plaintiffs relief, I feel the refusal of the Iowa State Highway Commission, as an arm of the State, to adequately compensate the plaintiffs, or to submit the matter of damages to a jury, as a result of this actual taking of a property interest, must be vigorously condemned. Well-known provisions in our Constitution and in our statutes are designed to protect property owners from such treatment, and we should aid that purpose in this case.