Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 49247
| Decision Date | 17 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 49247,49247 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS LOUISIANA GAS COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Boyd CABLE and Eva Lee Cable, husband and wife, Appellees. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court of Pittsburg County; Robert A. Layden, trial judge.
Appeal from judgment on verdict of jury assessing damages in eminent domain.
AFFIRMED.
James M. May, McAlester, for appellant.
Clyde Stipe, Stipe, Gossett, Stipe & Harper, McAlester, for appellees.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company (Arkla), appellant, was plaintiff in eminent domain action. Boyd Cable and Eva Lee Cable (landowners), appellees, were defendants. Arkla sought a high pressure gas pipeline right of way 80 feet wide and some 2707 feet long across landowners' one-quarter section of land in Pittsburg County. The petition and ancillary papers were filed, commissioners appointed, and commissioners' report and assessment of damage filed in due time. Both parties moved for jury trial.
On jury trial, Arkla's witnesses testified the best use of the realty was for agricultural purposes and the taking reduced fair market value by either $1,511.25 or $1,650.00.
Landowners' witnesses testified that the best use of the property was for residential subdivision, that in consequence of a high pressure pipeline running in the easement an additional 100 feet on each side of the easement was rendered useless for residential subdivision, and that fair market value was reduced by either $18,700, $22,000, or $39,950. One of landowners' witnesses, qualified as an expert on real property values, testified that the additional 100 foot strip along each side of the 80 foot easement was rendered useless for residential development because potential residents would not locate in proximity to a high pressure pipeline due to a general belief pipelines explode.
Jury verdict for $9,000.00 was returned and journal entry of judgment was filed. Motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were filed.
After the motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were overruled petition in error was timely filed.
Appellant raises three propositions. We will consider proposition Two and proposition Three and then dispose of proposition One.
Appellant's second proposition is:
"While competent evidence may be introduced to show adaptability of undeveloped farm land for residential building or subdivisional purposes, it is prejudicial to permit valuation thereof on a per lot basis and allow 'damages' to be computed on the aggregated value of the hypothetical building sites or lots and thus arrive at the difference between the 'before and after' value, and assess this sum as the amount due."
The record reveals appellees' witnesses did not aggregate the value of hypothetical building sites valued on a per lot basis. Testimony offered appellees' expert witnesses went to fair market value for residential subdivision prior to taking by Arkla, and to fair market value after taking, and to the difference, or diminution in value.
Evidence of diminution in market value, arrived at by comparing market value prior to taking and market value after taking, where market value is expressed in terms of a particular suitable use, is admissible. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Maggi, Okl., 409 P.2d 369; City of Tulsa v. Biles, Okl., 360 P.2d 723.
Diminution in value of the remainder may be directly the result of the taking, such as here where usefulness of the surface is impaired by taking. Diminution may also result consequentially, as where land not taken is somehow reduced in value by taking. Both direct and consequential diminution may be proved by testimony. Finley v. Board of County Commissioners, Okl., 291 P.2d 333.
In the instant case,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.L., Matter of
...court record before us. A party may not assign errors on appeal which were not presented to the trial court. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 585 P.2d 1113, 1116 (Okl.1978); Kepler v. Strain, 579 P.2d 191, 193 The misapplication of 10 O.S.Supp.1984 § 1104.1, 10 O.S.Supp.1982 § 40.5, 25 ......
-
Steidley v. Cmty. Newspaper Holdings, Inc.
...deadline. Error not raised before the trial court may not be considered for the first time on appeal. 12 O.S. § 992 ; Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable , 1978 OK 133, ¶ 16, 585 P.2d 1113. Accordingly, this portion of Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.8 As to Plaintiffs' a......
-
Ryan v. Kansas Power & Light Co.
... ... v. Ashley, 605 S.W.2d 514, 519 (Mo.App.1980); Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Cable, 585 P.2d 1113, 1116 ... Page 536 ... ...
-
Western Farmers Elec. Co-op. v. Enis
...in forming an opinion concerning the valuation of property, and, ultimately, by a trier of the fact. In the case of Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company v. Cable, 1978 OK 133, ¶ 14, 585 P.2d 1113, 1116, the court held that it was proper for an expert appraiser to rely on newspaper articles to sho......