Under the common-understanding doctrine, it is clear that plaintiffs should be allowed to receive compensation for the diminution in the value of their property due to highway effects. Consideration of the use to which the taken property is put is proper. The Johnstone case alone is almost directly controlling, but numerous other cases over many decades consistently support consideration of the total effect of a partial taking on a property’s value.
Indeed, a few cases even indicate that just compensation for a taking should be liberally construed to include compensation to property owners in instances where no part of their land was physically condemned. As a consequence, Spiek certainly should not be extended; if anything, it should be reconsidered, given that there is prior case law that contradicts it and no common-understanding analysis was performed in regard to it. What is also clear is that the attempt in MCL 213.70(2) to limit the damages due to a person who suffers a partial taking is unconstitutional.