State v. Mauney

6 Citing cases

  1. State Highway Com'n v. McDonalds Corp.

    509 So. 2d 856 (Miss. 1987)   Cited 21 times
    Analyzing whether "compensation is due" upon the revocation of a state-issued permit—not whether the permit's revocation was a contract breach

    It is a regulatory action taken by the State for safety purposes and cannot be compared with a right-of-way agreement in which the property owner reserve access at a particular point. In State v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 411 P.2d 1009, 1914 (1966), the Supreme Court of New Mexico held: Even if we were to assume that the permit was revoked, or revoked in part, the law affords no relief in favor of the landowners.

  2. State ex Rel. State Hihgway Commission v. Brock

    80 N.M. 80 (N.M. 1969)   Cited 2 times
    Applying the rule that "reasonable access … is noncompensable" to a partial taking

    MOISE, Justice (dissenting). In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 411 P.2d 1009 (1966), I acquiesced in the result reached by the majority of the court for the announced reason that my objections, stated in three dissents (State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Silva, 71 N.M. 350, 378 P.2d 595 (1962); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Danfelser, 72 N.M. 361, 384 P.2d 241 (1963), and State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Lavasek, 73 N.M. 33, 385 P.2d 361 (1963)) had proved fruitless, and I was accordingly forced to accept the contrary conclusion announced by the majority as the law of this state. Notwithstanding my recognition of the law as announced, I am once again moved to express my disagreement in the instant case because of the application of those rules.

  3. State Highway Commission v. Peters

    416 P.2d 390 (Wyo. 1966)   Cited 26 times
    In Peters, this Court did, indeed, say that the legislature cannot infringe upon a property owner's right to be compensated for the taking of or damage to his property.

    The Highway Commission would like us to embrace and adopt for this state the rule of State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Danfelser, 72 N.M. 361, 384 P.2d 241, 246, cert den 375 U.S. 969, 84 S.Ct. 487, 11 L.Ed.2d 416, to the effect that an abutting property owner's right of access is only to the system of public highways, but not necessarily directly to the main traveled portion thereof; and that an abutter having access to a frontage road which provides "reasonable" access to the main traveled highway is afforded access to the public road system, and any circuity of travel, once that access is given, is noncompensable. See also State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 411 P.2d 1009. Counsel for the property owners, on the other hand, argue access to a highway is a property right which cannot be taken away without compensation.

  4. State v. Westrum

    380 N.W.2d 187 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 3 times
    Explaining an ordinance may not "authorize what a statute forbids"

    The terms are frequently used interchangeably. See State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 43, 411 P.2d 1009, 1014 (1966); Black's Law Dictionary 829, 1026 (5th ed. 1979). We therefore believe that the ordinance does not fail solely because it uses the word "permit" instead of "license."

  5. Alexander v. Cook

    90 N.M. 598 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that state court jurisdiction over a suit for damages between non-Indians for "business activities" that occurred on Indian land did not infringe on tribal sovereignty

    Neither party has briefed the nature of this "permit" interest. Compare: Lease — State v. District Court of Ninth Judicial Dist., Curry County, 44 N.M. 16, 96 P.2d 710 (1939), 126 A.L.R. 651 (1940); permit — State v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 411 P.2d 1009 (1966); license — New Mexico Sheriffs Police Ass'n v. Bureau of Rev., 85 N.M. 565, 514 P.2d 616 (1973). Whatever the nature of plaintiff's "permit" interest, damage to that interest is protected by the courts.

  6. New Mexico Sheriffs & Police Ass'n v. Bureau of Revenue

    85 N.M. 565 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 6 times
    In New Mexico Sheriffs and Police Ass'n v. Bureau of Revenue, 85 N.M. 565, 514 P.2d 616 (Ct.App. 1973), also cited by the Bureau, this court held that a contract granting another the exclusive right to publish, distribute and sell, and solicit advertising for the Association's official magazine, under which the Association would receive a 16% royalty from advertising receipts only, created a "license" and proceeds from the license would be subject to gross receipts tax; and it did not provide to the Association the deduction from gross receipts tax available to those receiving income from publishing newspapers or magazines.

    . . ." Compare State v. Mauney, 76 N.M. 36, 411 P.2d 1009 (1966). The ordinary meaning of license being "permission to act," the contract in question was a license from taxpayer to Shaffer to publish the magazine.