State Highway Dept. v. MacDonald

3 Citing cases

  1. Dept. of Transportation v. Roberts

    241 Ga. 433 (Ga. 1978)   Cited 4 times
    Relying on Moore and its progeny to hold injunctive relief unavailable where challenged construction was not on plaintiff motel owners’ property or even the adjoining road; rather, it simply made interstate access "more circuitous"

    In these circumstances, equity will not enjoin the State Department of Transportation. State Hwy. Dept. v. MacDonald, 221 Ga. 312 ( 144 S.E.2d 363) (1965); State Hwy. Dept. v. Strickland, 213 Ga. 785 ( 102 S.E.2d 3) (1958); Moore v. City of Atlanta, 70 Ga. 611 (1883). In Strickland, supra, 213 Ga. at 788, the court said: "Since the decision in Moore v. City of Atlanta, 70 Ga. 611, supra, it has been the settled rule of law that equity will not, by interlocutory injunction, interfere with a public improvement in which no part of the property of the citizen was actually taken.

  2. Macon County v. City of Oglethorpe

    229 Ga. 687 (Ga. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    Counties have no right to construct roads within a municipality without its permission. Almand v. Atlanta Consolidated St. R. Co., 108 Ga. 417 ( 34 S.E. 6); Bd. of Commrs. of Sumter County v. Mayor c. of Americus, 141 Ga. 542 ( 81 S.E. 435); Wood v. Shore, 160 Ga. 173 ( 127 S.E. 145). This rule does not apply to roads being constructed by direction of the State. Lee County v. Mayor c. of Smithville, 154 Ga. 550 ( 115 S.E. 107); State Hwy. Dept. v. MacDonald, 221 Ga. 312 (3b) ( 144 S.E.2d 363). See Code Ann. §§ 95-1504, 95-1738.

  3. Safeway v. State

    34 P.3d 336 (Alaska 2001)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that State's inclusion of street on right-of-way map was formal official action accepting street dedication

    See Kroeger v. St. Louis County, 218 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Mo. 1949) (holding that statute giving city authority to vacate street applies to streets and highways owned by city and does not apply to county or state roads that run through city). Cf. State Highway Dep't v. MacDonald, 144 S.E.2d 363, 367 (Ga. 1965) (holding that state highway department has full control over state highway system, including right to close county roads where necessary); Curtis v. Board of Sup'rs of Clinton County, 270 N.W.2d 447, 449-50 (Iowa 1978) (holding that only department of transportation, not local board of supervisors, has authority to alter or vacate any highway crossing in its system); Ex parte Com., Dep't of Highways, 291 S.W.2d 814, 815-16 (Ky. 1956) (holding that Department of Highways has power to take over any county road and make it a part of the state primary road system, and having done so, may by its own order discontinue such road). The parties do not dispute that the Municipality accepted the dedication of Becharof Street. The question is whether the State also accepted the dedication, and thus acquired its own right-of-way over the land.