# Brock v. State Highway Commission

> Supreme Court of Kansas · August 19, 1965 · 195 Kan. 361

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534465

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert L. Brock and Edwin R. Linquist, Appellants, v. State Highway Commission of Kansas, Appellee, and Ruth O. Ragsdale, Appellant, v. State Highway Commission of Kansas, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Kansas
- **Decided:** August 19, 1965
- **Citations:** 195 Kan. 361; 404 P.2d 934; 1965 Kan. LEXIS 408
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fontron
- **Judges:** Hatcher, Schroeder, Fontron, Wertz
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Disapproved on other grounds by Hales v. City of Kansas City, 248 Kan. 181 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534465

## Opinion text

Fontron, J.,
concurring: Under our decision in this case, the question of whether there has been a compensable taking of an abutting owner’s right of access to a controlled access highway or merely a restriction of his right of access thereto under the police power hinges, in the final analysis, on whether the restriction is reasonable. I cannot agree that this is always a question of law to be settled by the trial court. In my view, it is only when it can be said that reasonable minds could not differ that the question becomes one of law for the court to decide; otherwise, the issue of the reasonableness of a restriction is one of fact for a jury’s determination.
*379 I agree that, under the particular facts of this case, no jury issue is presented. The plaintiffs are provided access to the through-traffic lanes of Highway 24 at two points, only 575 feet apart. This access, I believe, can be said to be reasonable as a matter of law; hence, no compensable taking occurred. However, in cases where there is room for honest difference of opinion as to whether the limitation placed on a landowner’s right of access is reasonable, the matter should, in my judgment, be submitted to a jury for decision.
Wertz, J., joins in the foregoing concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9534465. Public record. Not legal advice.