Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialriparian rights
defendantwillsustainedriparian rights

Related Cases

Carver v. Teitsworth, 1 Cal.App.4th 845, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 446
View Case »
Da Silva v. Musso, 76 N.Y.2d 436, 559 N.E.2d 1268, 560 N.Y.S.2d 109
View Case »
Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1996 Copr.L.Dec. P 27,531, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 9055, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1026, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4023, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6511
View Case »
Shamrock Hilton Hotel v. Caranas, 488 S.W.2d 151
View Case »
Curtis v. Board of Educ. of Sayre Public Schools, 914 P.2d 656, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 960, 1995 OK 119
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Town of Orange v. Resnick, 94 Conn. 573, 109 A. 864, 10 A.L.R. 1046

Facts

The Town of Orange was granted rights to certain lands between high and low water marks by a special act of the general assembly in 1913, allowing it to develop the area as a public park. Resnick claimed ownership of adjacent upland and began constructing a bathing pavilion that would encroach upon the town's land. The town argued that this construction would impede its ability to fulfill the act's purpose of developing a public park. Resnick demurred, asserting that the act was unconstitutional and that the town was attempting to take his property without compensation.

The first count of the complaint alleges that by a special act of the general assembly approved June 6, 1913 (Sp. Acts 1913, p. 1102) the state conveyed to the town of Orange all its right, title, and interest in certain lands lying between high and low water mark, with authority to the Savin Rock Park Commission, created for that purpose, to develop and improve the same as a public park.

Issue

Whether the construction of the bathing pavilion by Resnick constitutes a lawful exercise of his riparian rights and whether the act of 1913 is unconstitutional for attempting to take those rights without compensation.

The second ground of the demurrer is to the effect that it appears from the complaint that the town is seeking to take the defendant's riparian rights for a public use without the payment of just compensation; and we think the complaint is open to that interpretation.

Rule

Riparian rights allow the owner of upland to use the soil between high and low water marks, provided such use does not obstruct navigation. The state cannot take private property for public use without just compensation.

It is settled that the ownership of upland bounded on tidewater carries with it such an interest in the adjoining soil between high and low water marks as will enable the owner of the upland to maintain ejectment against one who wrongfully occupies it by an embankment or a wharf.

Analysis

The court analyzed the act of 1913 and determined that it did not provide the town with the authority to extinguish Resnick's riparian rights without compensation. It noted that the act was inoperative in this regard and that the town could not restrain Resnick's lawful exercise of his rights without first condemning them. The court emphasized that the right of access to navigable waters is fundamental to riparian ownership and cannot be disregarded.

The court analyzed the act of 1913 and determined that it did not provide the town with the authority to extinguish Resnick's riparian rights without compensation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, sustaining the demurrer and ruling in favor of Resnick, concluding that the Town of Orange could not enforce the act without compensating for the taking of private property.

The demurrer is sustained on the grounds stated in paragraph 2 thereof.

Who won?

Isadore W. Resnick prevailed in the case because the court found that the Town of Orange's attempt to enjoin his construction was unconstitutional as it sought to take his riparian rights without compensation.

Isadore W. Resnick prevailed in the case because the court found that the Town of Orange's attempt to enjoin his construction was unconstitutional as it sought to take his riparian rights without compensation.

You must be