Morris Family LLC v. South Dakota Department of Transportation
2014 S.D. 97
| S.D. | 2014Background
- Morris Family owns property abutting U.S. Highway 212 in Watertown, SD.
- In 1969 the state condemned land to create a four-lane, controlled-access highway and sought rights of way and access.
- The 1970 judgment granted the State the right to control access to the right-of-way under Chapter 31-8, with damages allocated between land value and severance.
- A 24-foot shared access existed at the west edge; the driveway was realigned into a break in control of access as part of the condemnation.
- Morris Family later sought to relinqish or expand access; the State denied expanding the break and denied relinquishment of access control at new locations.
- In 2013-2014 Morris Family sued, asserting takings and due-process claims, challenging lack of notice and the adequacy of compensation, and seeking relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the due-process claim was properly before the court on summary judgment | Morris Family argues due process was a separate claim not properly raised for summary judgment. | State asserts the motion addressed all claims and the due process issue overlaps with ownership of access. | Summary judgment on all claims was proper; due-process issue encompassed by ownership of access. |
| Whether the State’s 1970 condemnation judgment validly conveyed control of access to the property | Morris Family contends the judgment did not clearly grant full control of access. | State contends the judgment granted broad control of access in accordance with Chapter 31-8. | Judgment vested the State with control of access; no genuine issue on the scope of control under 1970 judgment. |
| Whether Morris Family was deprived of a compensable property interest | Morris Family claims loss of access across the right-of-way constitutes takings without just compensation. | State asserts there was no deprivation of a compensable interest since the access was already controlled by the State. | No takings found; right to access was either preserved or compensated under the 1970 judgment. |
| Whether there were genuine material facts about entitlement to due process | Morris Family asserts a protected entitlement to access and a right to petition changes. | State contends no protected entitlement exists and due process requires legitimate entitlement before process is due. | No protected entitlement shown; due process not triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Quinn v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2014 S.D. 14 (2014) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof)
- Rupert v. City of Rapid City, 2013 S.D. 13 (2013) (constitutional takings and access rights on state action)
- Hall v. State ex rel. S.D. Dep’t of Transp., 2006 S.D. 24 (2006) (private rights in the street distinct from the public; right of access)
- Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926 (1986) (no legitimate entitlement to government-granted benefits under due process)
- Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (government discretion in granting benefits affects entitlement)
- Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U.S. 1 (1978) (benefits not a protected entitlement when officials may grant or deny)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interests are created by existing rules or understandings)
- Schroeder v. City of New York, 371 U.S. 208 (1962) (due process notice and finality requirements)