Court Opinion

ID: 9530987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:06:07.595464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:18.726527
License: Public Domain

LOCKWOOD, Justice
(dissenting):
I dissent from the holding in the foregoing supplemental opinion which reaffirms the original decision ordering the title to the property involved quieted in the State of Arizona.
The reasons for my dissent are fully set forth, as attached to the original opinion. They are basically two-fold:
(1) The majority of the court justifies its decision by application of common law principles of rights of riparian land owners. In my opinion the common law is inapplicable because the principles adopted are not, pursuant to the statutory provisions of A.R.S. § 1-201, “consistent with and adapted to the natural and physical conditions of this state and the necessities of the people thereof.” (2) The decision violates the provisions of Article 2, § 17, -Arizona Constitution, A.R.S., in that the result, i. e., permitting the state to acquire without compensation large quantities of property from private owners, constitutes a taking of the land for public use without just compensation having been made thérefor.