The Department of Transportation may designate and establish controlled-access highways as new and additional facilities or may designate and establish an existing street or highway as included within a controlled-access facility. When an existing street or highway shall be designated as and included within a controlled-access facility the owners of land abutting such existing street or highway shall be entitled to compensation for the taking of or injury to their easements of access. The Department of Transportation shall have authority to provide for the elimination of intersections at grade of controlled-access facilities with existing State highways and county roads, and city and town streets, by grade separation or frontage road, or by closing off such roads and streets, or other public ways at the right-of-way boundary line of such controlled-access facility; and after the establishment of any controlled-access facility, no highway or street which is not part of said facility shall intersect the same at grade. No street or [of] any city or town and no State highway, county road, or other public way shall be opened into or connected with any such controlled-access facility without the consent and previous approval of the Department of Transportation. Such consent and approval shall be given only if the public interest shall be served thereby. (1957, c. 993, s. 6; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; 1977, c. 464, s. 7.1.)
Notes of Decisions
Dep't of Transp. v. Roymac P'ship, 581 S.E.2d 770 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 9× “Defendants alternatively claim they are entitled to compensation under section 136-89.53 of the North Carolina General Statutes for loss of access to Roymac Drive.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Harkey, 301 S.E.2d 64 (N.C. 1983).
· cites it 4× “The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the elimination of defendant property owners’ direct access to an abutting highway is a taking under G.S. 136-89.53, entitling them to compensation for damages in a condemnation proceeding, when access to the highway remains…”
North Carolina State High. Com'n v. Nuckles, 155 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 1967).
· cites it 4× “When an existing street or highway shall be designated as and included within a controlled-access facility the owners of land abutting such existing street or highway shall be entitled to compensation for the taking of or injury to their easements of access.”
Wofford v. North Carolina State High. Comm'n, 140 S.E.2d 376 (N.C. 1965).
· cites it 3× “G.S. § 136-89.53. When the Highway Commission acts in the interest of public safety, convenience and general welfare, in designating highways as controlled-access highways, its action is the exercise of the police power of the State.”
Dep't of Transp. v. Craine, 365 S.E.2d 694 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 3× “Furthermore, G.S. 136-89.53 states in part: The Department of Transportation may designate and establish controlled-access highways as new and additional facilities or may designate and establish an existing street or highway as included within a controlled-access facility.”
North Carolina State High. Comm'n v. Nuckles, 155 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 1967).
· cites it 2× “When an existing street or highway shall be designated as and included within a controlled-access facility the owners of land abutting such existing street or highway shall be entitled to compensation for the taking of or injury to their easements of access.”
Dr. T. C. Smith Co. v. North Carolina State High. Comm'n, 182 S.E.2d 383 (N.C. 1971).
“” In consequence of the denial of plaintiff’s abutter’s rights of access and the blocking and dead-ending of Wilmington Street at its intersection with Highway 191, the only available access to and from any portion of plaintiff’s property and “controlled-access” Highway 191 is…”
North Carolina State High. Comm'n v. English, 200 S.E.2d 429 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).
“Defendants assign as error that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury in accordance with the second sentence of G.S. 136-89.53, which reads as follows: “When an existing street or highway shall be designated as and included within a controlled-access facility the owners of…”
Prestige Realty Co. v. State High. Comm'n, 160 S.E.2d 83 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).
“51, and G.S. 136-89.53. If these General Statutes would otherwise allow such a taking without compensation, they are not controlling in this case because they were not enacted until 1957, which was four years after the right of way agreement between the Commission and the…”
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.