Creation — Vacation of streets — Eminent domain — Reversion of vacated streets.
Cities are empowered to: create, open, widen or extend any street, avenue, alley or lane, annul, vacate or discontinue the same whenever deemed expedient for the public good; to take private property for such purposes when deemed necessary, or for the purpose of giving right of way or other privileges to railroad companies, or for the purpose of erecting malls or commons; provided, however, that in all cases the city shall make adequate compensation therefor to the person or persons whose property shall be taken or injured thereby. The taking of property shall be as provided in title 7, chapter 7, Idaho Code. The amount of damages resulting from the vacation of any street, avenue, alley or lane shall be determined, under such terms and conditions as may be provided by the city council. Provided further that whenever any street, avenue, alley or lane shall be vacated, the same shall revert to the owner of the adjacent real estate, one-half (1/2) on each side thereof, or as the city council deems in the best interests of the adjoining properties, but the right of way, easements and franchise rights of any lot owner or public utility shall not be impaired thereby. In cities of fifty thousand (50,000) population or more in which a dedicated alley has not been used as an alley for a period of fifty (50) years shall revert to the owner of the adjacent real estate, one-half (1/2) on each side thereof, by operation of the law, but the existing rights of way, easements and franchise rights of any lot owner or public utility shall not be impaired thereby.
Notes of Decisions
Infanger v. City of Salmon, 44 P.3d 1100 (Idaho 2002).
· cites it 16× “damages against the City; that the Infangers had no standing to assert a claim for damages against the City; that any claim of the Infangers for liability created by statute or trespass was barred by the statute of limitations; that the Infangers' challenge to the Ordinance was…”
Black v. Young, 834 P.2d 304 (Idaho 1992).
· cites it 68× “Idaho Code § 50-311 does not empower a municipal corporation to impose any conditions upon the vacation of an alley except for the proviso regarding impairment of the right of way, easements, and franchise rights of lot owners and public utilities.”
Clark v. Olsen, 715 P.2d 993 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 8× “In a Memorandum Decision dated January 4, 1978, the court held the ordinance void by reason of the defendants' failure to comply with I.C. § 50-311, and granted Clark's motion for partial summary judgment.”
Carney v. Heinson, 985 P.2d 1137 (Idaho 1999).
· cites it 8× “In determining ownership of the portion of the vacated alleyway in question, both I.C. § 50-311 and Ordinance 353 support the position that one-half of the vacated alleyway was conveyed with Lot 1 as of the initial transfer of the lot by the Smuts.”
Bopp v. City of Sandpoint, 716 P.2d 1260 (Idaho 1986).
· cites it 8× “2d 1285 (1974), vacation of streets under I.C. § 50-311 being such a discretionary function.”
Old Cutters, Inc. v. City of Hailey (In re Old Cutters, Inc.), 488 B.R. 130 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2012).
· cites it 9× “Specifically, the Black’s asked the city council to approve the vacation of an alley under Idaho Code § 50-311 . In return for the vacation, the Black’s offered to pay $5,000 and to transfer the log cabin and salvageable material from the property to be vacated to Ketehum.”
Boise Tower Assocs., LLC v. Hogland, 215 P.3d 494 (Idaho 2009).
· cites it 2× “This Court found the ordinance invalid as the conditions exceeded the authority the city was granted through I.C. § 50-311, which specifically governed the process whereby streets were vacated.”
Goodman Oil Co. v. Scotty's Duro-Bilt Generator, Inc., 205 P.3d 1192 (Idaho 2009).
· cites it 2× “3374 be, and is hereby, REMANDED to the City of Nampa for its determination as to whether other factors existed or regarding the public good requirements of I.C. § 50-311. The district court issued a judgment for costs and attorneys fees on April 27, 2007.”
Christensen v. City of Pocatello, 124 P.3d 1008 (Idaho 2005).
· cites it 2× “The Christensens base their abandonment claim on Idaho Code § 50-311 , which provides that in cities with populations of 50,000 or more “in which a dedicated alley has not been used as an alley for a period of fifty (50) years [such alley] shall revert to the owner of the…”
Boise City Ex Rel. Amyx v. Fails, 499 P.2d 326 (Idaho 1972).
· cites it 4× “429, § 42, dealing with vacation of city streets (I.C. § 50-311), and § 235 et seq. (I.C. § 50-1317 et seq.”
Sherman Storage, LLC v. Global Signal Acquisitions II, LLC, 360 P.3d 340 (Idaho 2015).
· cites it 2× “Idaho Code section 50-311 provides in pertinent part: [Wlhenever any street, avenue, alley or lane shall be vacated, the same shall revert to the owner of the adjacent real estate, one-half ()4) on each side thereof, or as the city council deems in the best interests of the…”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Boise Redevelopment Agency, 607 P.2d 1084 (Idaho 1980).
· cites it 2× “I.C. § 50-311 provides that after vacation, the street reverts to the adjoining property owners, *35 “but the right of way, easements and franchise rights of any lot owner or public utility shall not be impaired thereby.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.