Hardin v. South Carolina Department of Transportation; Tallent v. South Carolina Department of Transportation, 371 S.C. 598

641 S.E.2d 437 (2007) · Supreme Court of South Carolina · February 12, 2007 · No. No. 26262

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina considered whether road closures and realignments by the South Carolina Department of Transportation constituted compensable takings under the state and federal constitutions. The court reversed judgments for the property owners, holding that no taking occurred because their access easements and access to the public road system were not disturbed; a separate opinion disagreed as to the Tallent property.

Holdings

  1. A public-road closure or realignment does not constitute a compensable taking unless it takes or directly interferes with the owner's property interest in an access easement. Retaining access to the public road system means the owner's access easement remains intact.
  2. The court overruled the special-injury analysis in this area and held that takings claims arising from road reconfigurations must focus on whether an access easement was taken or disturbed.
  3. The Hardin owners did not suffer a compensable taking because they continued to have access to Dave Lyle Boulevard and the public road system; the inability to turn in one direction was irrelevant.
  4. The Tallent plaintiff did not suffer a compensable taking because no aspect of her property was physically taken and the court concluded that her access easement was not taken.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether closing a median opening that prevents property owners from turning in one direction onto a public highway constitutes a compensable taking.
  2. Whether realigning public roads and effectively placing a commercial property on a cul-de-sac constitutes a compensable taking when the owner retains access to the public road system.
  3. Whether South Carolina's prior special-injury analysis for road closures should continue to govern takings claims involving public-road access.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (23)

  • Byrd v. City of Hartsville, 365 S.C. 650, 620 S.E.2d 76 (2005)(followed)
  • Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S. Ct. 1515, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006)(cited)
  • Westside Quik Shop, Inc. v. Stewart, 341 S.C. 297, 534 S.E.2d 270 (2000)(followed)
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992)(followed)
  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1978)(followed)
  • Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868 (1982)(followed)
  • South Carolina State Highway Department v. Allison, 246 S.C. 389, 143 S.E.2d 800 (1965)(followed)
  • City of Rock Hill v. Cothran, 209 S.C. 357, 40 S.E.2d 239 (1946)(overruled)
  • Gray v. South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation, 311 S.C. 144, 427 S.E.2d 899 (Ct. App. 1992)(limited)
  • South Carolina State Highway Department v. Carodale Associates, 268 S.C. 556, 235 S.E.2d 127 (1977)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from South Carolina Supreme Court