Court Opinion

ID: 9545524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:14:45.467589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:01.653054
License: Public Domain

ON DENIAL OF PETITION FOR REHEARING
KNUDSON, Chief Justice.
The petition for rehearing presented by respondent asserts that the foregoing decision “creates uncertainty as to whether or not the respondent State may regulate traffic entering and leaving the state’s highways.” We are unable to find in the opinion any justification for such a conclusion.
The issue presented upon this ap peal is whether the district court erred in granting defendant’s-respondent’s motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that “as a result of the alterations * * * the ingress and egress to plaintiff’s real property was and is obstructed * * * ”. No evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, was submitted to or considered -by the district court in passing upon the motion to dismiss. The existence and extent of the alleged obstruction, if any, must be established before it can be *569determined that the appellant is, or is not, entitled to any relief. The cases cited in respondent’s petition for rehearing do not involve a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, each case went to trial before a jury or upon stipulated facts to the court.
This decision does not hold nor does it justify any inference that each of the allegations contained in the complaint involved states a claim upon which relief may be granted. However, we do say that it does not appear beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied.
McOUADE, McFADDEN, TAYLOR and SMITH, JJ., concur.