Triangle, Inc. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2026
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board · 23 Cal. 2d 390 - People v. Ricciardi · 23 Cal. 3d 360 - People v. Backus · Stefan Auto Body v. State Highway Commission · Ray v. State Highway Commission
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All jurisdictions recognize that an owner of abutting land has a right of access to and from a public street or highway. In Alaska, this incident of ownership is limited to a “right of reasonable access.” This rule is in accord with that adopted by a majority of jurisdictions. In B & G Meats [Inc. v. State, 601 P.2d 252 (Alaska 1979) ] we set forth the principles controlling a claim of taking caused by a change in access to streets or highways: “No hard and fast rule can be stated, but courts must weigh the relative interests of the public and the individual and strike a just balance so that government will not be unduly restricted in its function for the public safety, while at the same time, give due effect to the policy of eminent domain to insure the individual against an unreasonable loss occasioned by the exercise of the police power. ... While an abutter has the right of access to the public highway system, it does not follow that he has a direct-access right to the main traveled portion thereof; circuity of travel, so long as it is not unreasonable, is non-compensable.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“reject[ed] Triangle’s argument that because the change in accessibility to its property diminished the value of the property, the loss is necessarily compensable. Government activity in pursuit of social goals often has a detrimental effect upon the value of some real property. Unless this detriment rises to the level of a “taking” or “damage” within the meaning of art. I, § 18 of the Alaska Constitution, however, there is no right to compensation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is only when a trial court concludes that the landowner has presented a valid claim that the case is submitted to the jury for a determination of the extent of the taking and the amount of compensation that must be paid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.