Ps own a motel whose only access is its five-hundred-foot frontage along the south side of primary state highway No. 2. The motel property abuts the south side of a four-lane highway. Tourists who travel in a westerly direction make up the bulk of Ps' patronage, which requires that they make a left-hand turn across the highway, against oncoming traffic, in order to enter P' property. D decided to install a raised concrete bar or curb at the center of the highway pursuant its police powers. D made an administrative determination that the highway in front of Ps' property is to be changed to a permanent limited-access facility, has initiated studies, prepared detailed plans, and initiated 'hearings thereon pursuant to R.C.W., Chapter 47.52'; that the proposed concrete center-line curb is an integral part of, and a necessary step in, the construction of the limited-access facility as planned. Ps claim that the deprivation of egress and ingress will severely damage their property and will seriously depress the fair market value of their property. Ps sued D for compensation. The court dismissed the action and Ps appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.