Division III: No Necessity Easement When You've Been given a Right of Access
Technically, I could call this a land use case, but its really more basic property law. If you want a really good recap of Washington easement law, this is a good place to start, as it goes through all the different types in excrutiating detail.
The LLC here held land. And over time, the access to the land had dwindled down and they had done nothing about it. WSDOT ordered the last access to the land, a bridge, taken down. The LLC then brought an inverse condemnation action, claiming the State essentially made the land valueless (or diminished its value) via the bridge removal.
First off, here, they claimed the bridge was the last access, but there was still the chance for access through another easement. Second, the LLC (and the predecessors in interest - people that owned the land before) kind of let the rights to other means of access slip over time. This included loss of a main road and the use of some property by train tracks which then went away, etc, etc. Its all really dry reading.
Finally, WSDOT has said over and over it would give the LLC access to the highway, and thus resolve all its problems: "Where a landowner is able to build a roadway providing ingress and egress, any inconvenience in doing so is a loss that does not give rise to an action for damages against the person causing it.” In other words, just build the darn road that you’ve been offered. You don’t get the choice of a perfect road, just one that works.