Court Opinion

ID: 9567822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:58:10.509017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:20:45.255139
License: Public Domain

Gunter, Justice,
dissenting.
I think the trial court’s judgment was erroneous and I would reverse.
The property of appellees abuts an easement in favor of the City, such easement being for the benefit of the public. The City, under its police power, has the power and authority to reasonably regulate the use of the easement by the public. Reasonable regulation of the easement by the City does not forfeit the easement and does not effect a reversion of the easement-realty to the abutting property owners.
It is therefore my view that until the City regulates the easement in an unreasonable manner so as to exceed its police power, there is no "taking” of the property of the appellees.
The termination of vehicular traffic to and from the property of the appellees abutting the easement is not a per se "taking” of the appellees’ property. The City can reasonably regulate the public use of the easement under its police power, and appellees, in my opinion, have no absolute right to vehicular access across the easement to their abutting property. The termination of vehicular access to the abutting property will not in and of itself constitute a taking of the abutting property or the taking of an interest therein so long as there is reasonable access to such abutting property for the purposes for which it is being used.
Also, in my opinion, the erection of a public transit station for the use of the public in this public easement will not effect a taking of the property or any interest in the property of the appellees.
I would reverse the judgment below.
*582I respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Jordan and Justice Hall concur in this dissent.