Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent. DANA BREEDEN
Case summary
Claimant sought damages for the decrease in value of his property caused by the State raising the elevation of a highway in front of his property. The court awarded $200.00 based on conflicting testimony regarding the decrease in value.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- DAMAGE TO PRIVATE‘ PROPERTY-not t a k e n f o r public zise-eazised b y con-
I WILLIAM J. LONG, for claimant. -GEORGE F. BARRETT, Attorney General; ROBERT V. OSTROM, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
DAMAGE TO PRIVATE‘ PROPERTY-not taken for public zise-eazised by constructzon of publzc improvement-measure of. Where private property is not taken for public use, but is damaged by reason of the construction of a public improvement, the proper measure of such damage is the difference between the fair, cash market value of the property, unaffected by the improvement , and its fair cash value, as affected by the improvement, and an award may , be made for such difference in value.
J. FISBER, This claim was filed on July 8, 1936, for damages to claimant’s property as a result of the construction of a hard road by the State in front of claimant’s property.
Claimant alleges that he is the owner of the real estate described in the complaint, and that the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State raised the elevation of State Bond Issue Route 100, in front of claimant’s property in the Village of Browning, Schuyler County, Illinois, about ten (10) feet.
That because of the elevation of said highway, claimant’s property suffered consequential damages in the amount of Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350.00).
In accordance with Section 13 of Article 2 of the Constitution of Illinois“Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation,” and claimant is, therefore, entitled to an award.
There is, however, conflicting evidence with respect to the decrease in value of the property because of the construction of said highway. One witness for the claimant testified that the property value was decreased Five Hundred to Six [*187] Hundred Dollars ; another witness testi-fied that the value decreased Two Hundred Fifty Dollars. Two witnesses testified for the respondent, both of whom agreed that the decrease in value was approximately One Hundred Dollars.
This court is of the opinion, after a review of all the testimony, that a fair award would be the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00).
An award is therefore made in favor of Dana Breeden, claimant, for the said sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00).