State of Indiana v. Dunn
Indiana Court of Appeals
888 N.E.2d 858 (2008)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
John Dunn (plaintiff) owned and operated hotels, including one in Evansville, Indiana, which was located near Green River Road. Motorists traveling in either direction on Green River Road could access Dunn’s hotel by turning onto a service road that led to the hotel. The State of Indiana (defendant) installed a concrete median on Green River Road that prevented southbound drivers from making a left-hand turn onto the service road. The state installed the median as a safety measure, pursuant to its statutory authority to maintain and improve roads. Drivers who were traveling southbound on Green River Road could still make their way to the hotel but had to follow a circuitous route to get there, after the median was installed. Dunn filed an inverse-condemnation action against the state, alleging that the installation of the median impaired vehicular access to his property, reduced the hotel’s business, and amounted to a government taking without compensation. Both Dunn and the state filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dunn partial summary judgment, determining that a taking had occurred. The case then went to trial for a determination of damages, and Dunn was awarded more than $4.7 million in damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The state appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vaidik, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.