Court Opinion

ID: 9545108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:06:22.904324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:06.084123
License: Public Domain

Schroeder, J.,
dissenting: I must respectfully dissent on the ground the court has completely reversed its previous construction of the controlled access facilities statute (K. S. A. 68-1901 to 68-1906, inclusive) announced in Smith v. State Highway Commission, 185 Kan. 445, 346 P. 2d 259. My reasons are fully set forth and may be found in my dissenting opinion in Brock v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 361, 404 P. 2d 934, at page 373.
Fontron, J. concurring: I concur in the court’s decision that under the instant facts the access accorded plaintiffs to the main lanes of the highway via the frontage road can be said, as a matter of law, to be reasonable. However, as pointed out in my concurring opinion in Brock v. State Highway Commission, 195 Kan. 361, 378, 404 P. 2d 934, it is my view that when reasonable minds might differ as to whether the limitation of access is reasonable, an issue of fact is presented which should be submitted to a jury.