explaining that the basis for the rule that two parcels of land on opposite sides of a public road are contiguous “rests most comfortably upon a common sense recognition and understanding of what is necessary for the proper and efficient functioning of city government” (emphasis added)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the basis for the rule that two parcels of land on opposite sides of a public road are contiguous “rests most comfortably upon a common sense recognition and understanding of what is necessary for the proper and efficient functioning of city government” (emphasis added)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
All of the annexations in this case were based on the authority of City of Tuskegee v. Lacey , 486 So.2d 393 (Ala. 1985), not on the authority of City of Dothan v. Dale County Comm'n , 295 Ala. 131 , 324 So.2d 772 (1975). I am of the opinion that (except for the one annexation approved) the properties annexed were not contiguous; as I understand the facts, the city attempted to meet the "contiguity" requirement in those annexations only by using a public way, which the law does not permit.