Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

County Commissioners Award Damages for Vacation of Roads
Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Davenport Pastures, LP v. Morris County Board of County Commissioners, 194 P.3d 1201 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008), the Kansas Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that a county commission's conduct in conducting a hearing and awarding damages for vacating roads leading to his property was in violation of his due process rights, and the court affirmed the commission's decision.

Background

A lessee brought an action for damages against the county for vacating two unimproved roads that provided access to his ranch. Id. at 1204. The district court held that the plaintiff's loss of access was compensable, and after conducting its own hearing, the county commissioners awarded him damages based on the county's experts' estimates, which were much lower than those of the plaintiff's experts, and the plaintiff appealed. Id. at 1204-05.

Arguments

Plaintiff argued that the county counselor's participation in the hearing and the commissioners' consideration of outside evidence violated his right to due process. He also argued that there was no substantial competent evidence to support the commission's damage award and that the relevant Kansas statutes were unconstitutional. Id. at 1205.

Analysis and Holdings

The court found no evidence that the county counselor's involvement in the quasi-judicial hearing actually affected the commission's decision, and it further concluded that the commissioners' acts of reviewing roads and maps of the area was not reversible error. Id. at 1205-07. In sum, the court found that the commission's proceeding was "fair, open, and impartial, as required by Kansas law" and that the statutes governing the commission's authority and the scope of the district court's review were not unconstitutional, and therefore affirmed the commission's decision. Id. at 1205-11.

The case was decided on October 31, 2008.



 

This material is based on work supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under Agreement No. 59-8201-9-115. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The National Agricultural Law Center is a federally funded research institution located at the University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville.

Web site: www.NationalAgLawCenter.org | Phone: (479)575-7646 | Email: NatAgLaw@uark.edu