Canyon View Ranch v. Basin Elec. Power Corp.
| Decision Date | 11 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 5359,5359 |
| Citation | 628 P.2d 530 |
| Parties | CANYON VIEW RANCH, a corporation, William J. Essert, Wayne S. Hunter, John Drummond Smith, and Spool Ranch Co., a corporation, Appellants (Defendants below), Bert Eugene Baker (Defendant below), v. BASIN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
David F. Palmerlee and Lawrence A. Yonkee of Redle, Yonkee & Arney, Sheridan, for appellants.
D. N. Sherard and Richard A. Stacy, Wheatland, for appellee.
Before ROSE, C. J., * and McCLINTOCK, ** RAPER, *** THOMAS, and ROONEY, JJ.
This appeal is taken by several landowners from damage awards made to them after a jury trial in a condemnation action. The action was brought to obtain easements The action was instituted by a Complaint in Condemnation which was filed on April 12, 1978, and pursuant to which Basin Electric Power Cooperative, under the authority granted by § 1-26-401, W.S.1977, sought to obtain right-of-way easements for two electric power transmission lines. The two easements sought for the transmission lines extend in a generally southeasterly direction from the Laramie River Station of the Missouri Basin power project near Wheatland, Wyoming, to points on the border of Wyoming and Nebraska. The power lines are known as the Laramie River Station to Sidney transmission line and the Laramie River Station to Stegall transmission line. As to each landowner over whose lands one or both of the proposed easements would cross, the easement described a "strip of land 200 feet in width, lying 100 feet on each side of" a particularly described centerline. The action proceeded in accordance with Rule 71.1 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure.
for two high-voltage power transmission lines. The most significant question raised in the appeal is whether the district court correctly instructed the jury as to the proper measure of damages in such a condemnation action. Other questions raised relate to the exclusion from evidence of written materials describing perceived problems and dangers from such power lines, and the admission into evidence of an order of the Industrial Siting Council which contained requirements that Basin Electric Power Cooperative mitigate certain damages arising in connection with the construction and maintenance of the power lines. We will hold that there was no error in the instructions given by the trial court nor in its rulings with respect to the evidence. The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
As noted, the transmission lines in issue run in a generally southeasterly direction from the Laramie River Station to the Nebraska border. The lands of Canyon View Ranch over which the transmission lines cross are located approximately 10 to 15 miles north northwest of Hawk Springs, Wyoming. The William J. Essert lands are located approximately 15 miles west northwest of Hawk Springs, Wyoming. The lands of John Drummond Smith are found from 11 to 14 miles west northwest of Hawk Springs, Wyoming; while the Spool Ranch Co. lands lie in two parcels, one of which is 11 miles west northwest of Hawk Springs, Wyoming, and the other 6 miles west southwest of Hawk Springs. The lands of Wayne S. Hunter are approximately 81/2 miles west of Hawk Springs. All of these lands are located in Townships 21 North, Range 63 West, 21 North, Range 64 West, 22 North, Range 63 West, and 22 North, Range 64 West, 6th Principal Meridian, in Goshen County, Wyoming. These landowners are referred to collectively as appellants.
On May 16, 1978, an Order Appointing Appraisers was filed. On November 16, 1978, the Certificate of Appraisers' Awards was filed. An award was made with respect to the lands of each of the appellants here. As to each of them, the award was apportioned between the fair market value of the land within the 200-foot corridor as of May 26, 1978, and the diminution in value after the taking of the remaining lands of each such appellant. As to the parties in this appeal, the appraisers' awards were as follows:
Fair Market Diminution
Value of in Value
200-ft. of Remaining Total
Appellant Corridor Lands Damages
--------- ----------- ------------ -------
Canyon View Ranch
a corporation $14,261.50 $82,050.18 $96,311.68
William J. Essert 1,850.00 7,007.00 8,857.00
Wayne S. Hunter 10,187.10 54,643.67 64,830.77
John Drummond Smith 5,995.70 18,947.96 24,943.66
Spool Ranch Co
a corporation 15,091.45 65,792.80 80,884.25 1
On December 4, 1978, Basin Electric Power Cooperative filed a demand for a jury trial with respect to the question of damages to the landowners. The case then came on to be tried before a jury between the dates of June 25, 1979, and July 6, 1979. The jury verdicts as to each of the respective appellants were as follows:
Canyon View Ranch
a corporation $4,709.00
William J. Essert 6,600.00
Wayne S. Hunter 4,210.40
John Drummond Smith 2,152.40
Spool Ranch Co
a corporation 7,993.90
The Judgment on Verdict was entered on August 30, 1979, and this appeal is taken from that judgment.
At the trial the damage theory of the several appellants was that they were entitled to the full value of the area of land within the 200-foot corridor through which the transmission lines would extend, and that in addition they were entitled to the difference in value before the taking and after the taking of the remaining lands of each appellant. The theory of Basin Electric Power Cooperative was that the landowners were entitled to damages representing the difference in value of their lands before the condemnation of the easements and after the condemnation of the easements, but that they were not entitled to the separate factors as presented in the theory of the appellants.
The several appellants each testified as to the value of their lands. With the exception of Appellant Essert it essentially was their view that the taking of the power line easements reduced the value of their lands by about 10 percent. They then produced an expert witness who testified as to total damages with respect to the lands other than the Essert lands as follows:
Canyon View Ranch $96,311.69
John Drummond Smith 24,943.66
Spool Ranch Co. 79,511.35
Wayne Hunter 64,830.77
Another expert witness testified that in his opinion the damage to the Essert lands was $45,000. The expert witness for the appellee testified that in his opinion there was no measurable difference in the value of the appellants' lands before the taking and after the taking based upon market value comparisons. He did testify, however, that a certain amount of the surface was lost to the appellants which consisted of the area actually covered by the towers for the transmission lines and a strip which he described as about 25 feet wide running the length of the easement, which would be a road used in connection with construction and maintenance of the transmission lines. He also testified that they might have a temporary loss of the lands within the 200-foot easement for about two years during the construction of the power lines. Based upon these latter two factors he then gave his estimate of total damage to the lands of each of the appellants as follows:
Canyon View Ranch $1,620.00
John Drummond Smith 716.30
Spool Ranch Co. 1,647.10
Wayne S. Hunter 1,441.28
William J. Essert 276.49
It was appellee's expert's opinion that the Essert lands were not suited to development for irrigated farming, while other witnesses for Essert and Essert himself gave a contrary opinion. As will be noted, the damages assessed by the jury were within the ranges of expert testimony but were substantially closer to the lower end of the scale. They apparently did find a prospect for irrigated development of the Essert lands since that was the next to the largest damage award submitted by the jury.
The instructions on damages given by the district court read as follows:
At the trial the appellants offered as exhibits certain publications consisting of newspaper and magazine articles and environmental impact statements. Each of these publications included assertions with respect to the disadvantages, problems, hazards and possible deleterious effects of high-tension power lines. 2 The purpose of the appellants in offering these exhibits was to demonstrate that there was widespread knowledge of such views, and that this had an impact upon the marketplace so far as lands over which such power lines were constructed were concerned. This limitation was claimed to overcome the objection that the exhibits were hearsay. The district court refused to admit the evidence on the bases that the exhibits were irrelevant and were hearsay and that the potential for prejudice outweighed the probative value. In his remarks he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System, In re, s. 85-203
...It is well established in Wyoming that it is appellant's burden to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Canyon View Ranch v. Basin Electric Power Corp., Wyo., 628 P.2d 530 (1981). An abuse of discretion is an error of law under the circumstances; it occurs where the court could not reasonabl......
-
In re Rights to Use Water in Big Horn River
...It is well established in Wyoming that it is appellant's burden to demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Canyon View Ranch v. Basin Electric Power Corp., Wyo., 628 P.2d 530 (1981). An abuse of discretion is an error of law under the circumstances; it occurs where the court could not reasonabl......
-
Mueller v. Zimmer
...e.g., Odegard v. Odegard, 2003 WY 67, ¶ 14-15, 69 P.3d 917, 922-23 (Wyo.2003) (letter is hearsay); Canyon View Ranch v. Basin Electric Power Corporation, 628 P.2d 530, 537 (Wyo.1981) (facts in magazine article without any evidence to establish their truth or credibility are hearsay); and Ci......
-
Lindsey v. State
...v. State, Wyo., 632 P.2d 79 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 922, 102 S.Ct. 1280, 71 L.Ed.2d 463 (1982); Canyon View Ranch v. Basin Electric Power Corporation, Wyo., 628 P.2d 530 (1981); Barnard v. Wendling, Wyo., 627 P.2d 603 (1981); Hayes v. State, Wyo., 599 P.2d 569 (1979); Boggs v. State,......