Parker v. Armstrong, 2078
Decision Date | 07 December 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 2078,2078 |
Citation | 125 So.2d 138 |
Parties | George C. PARKER, Sr., and Mamie B. Parker, his wife, Petitioners, v. William H. ARMSTRONG and State Road Department of Florida, an Agency of the State of Florida, Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Donald Walker, Orlando; William D. Jones, Jr.; Jones & Foerster, Jacksonville, for petitioner.
Bryan Henry, Clyde G. Trammell, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent State Road Department.
The above petition for writ of certiorari was argued before this court at the same time that the case of Rich v. Harper Neon Company, Incorporated, 124 So.2d 750, was argued and one point of law involved herein is similar to the question involved in that case, to-wit:
'Whether the condemnation jury in the same verdict where the amount of compensation to be paid by the condemnor for the taking of private property is determined shall also apportion such compensation between the former owner of the fee title and the tenant of an unexpired leasehold term.'
In the Rich case an opinion was filed November 23, 1960, in which we granted certiorari and quashed that part of the order of the circuit court which provided for a jury trial to determine the damages of the tenant. Based on the case of Rich v. Harper Neon Company, supra, we shall also grant certiorari in this case and quash that part of the order of the circuit court entered the 28th day of July, 1960, Paragraph (3), which provides for a jury trial to determine the damages of a tenant in this petition.
Petitioners also asked this court to quash the order of the court below which refused permission to the owner-defendant to open and close the trial.
The petitioners, in their brief, state the question as follows:
'Whether the right to open and close the trial rests with the owner-defendant or upon the condemnor in an eminent domain proceeding where only the issue of compensation is before the court for trial and determination.'
The petitioners further state in their brief, page 16:
'Without attempting to burden the Court with a completely exhaustive submission of applicable authorities from all of the other jurisdictions of the country, it may be stated emphatically that the great and overwhelming weight of authority sustains the right of the land owner in a condemnation action to open and to close in cases where the necessity of the taking is not in issue and the sole question is the amount of damages.'
It is stated in 73 A.L.R.2d 619, § 2, as follows:
* * *'
The above annotation lists decisions from federal courts and from courts of Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and Oklahoma as states according the land owner the right to open and close. While it lists decisions by federal and state courts in Alabama, Ceorgia, Illinois, Maryland, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia as jurisdictions that, absent contrary statutory provisions, the condemnor has the right to open and close the argument in a condemnation case. It will be observed that the jurisdictions are about equally divided on the right to open and close the trial of the case.
A study of many cases set forth in this annotation reveals that the results of the decisions are affected by statutory provisions, procedural admissions on the part of either the landowner or the condemnor, and also on provisions of the constitutions of the various states.
Both the petitioners and the respondents state that this question has not been decided in Florida nor have we been able from independent research to find a case on point in eminent domain proceedings. We are of the opinion that under the constitution of Florida the condemning party has a duty to go forward with the evidence so that the jury may determine the value of the property taken before a judgment can be obtained on the question of damages, and, that having this burden to proceed in the case, the condemnor should have the right to open and close the case and should be accorded the right of opening and closing the oral argument to the jury.
Article XVI, Section 29, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., provides:
'No private property, nor right of way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation or individual until full compensation therefor shall be first made to the owner, or first secured to him by deposit of money; which compensation, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation or individual, shall be ascertained by a jury of twelve men in a court of competent jurisdiction, as shall be prescribed by law.'
In the case of Seattle & M. R. Co. v. Murphine, 1892, 4 Wash. 448, 30 P. 720, the Supreme Court, in its opinion, said:
* * *
In the case of Commissioners of Sewerage of Louisville v. Reisert, 243 Ky. 494, 49 S.W.2d 324, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky had befoer it the correctness of the trial court respecting the burden of proof. The lower court had placed the burden on the landowner. In its opinion reversing the lower court, the Court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tuttle v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp., X--249
...and Rice v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 281 So.2d 36 (Fla.App.4th, 1973), cert. den. 289 So.2d 735 (Fla.1974), with Parker v. Armstrong, 125 So.2d 138 (Fla.App.2d, 1960), cert. den. 133 So.2d 321 (Fla.1961), and Jones v. City of Tallahassee, 304 So.2d 528 (Fla.App.1st, 1974), cert. pending (Cas......
-
Lovett v. City of Jacksonville Beach
...proceeding without benefit of jury. Baldwin v. Miami Mercantile Center, Inc., 145 So.2d 881 (Fla.App.1962); Parker v. Armstrong, 125 So.2d 138 (Fla.App.1960); Rich v. Harper Neon Company, 124 So.2d 750 (Fla.App.1960); Cravero v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 91 So.2d 312 (Fla.1956). 2. ......
-
City of Ft. Lauderdale v. Casino Realty, Inc.
...City of Fort Lauderdale, 281 So.2d 36 (Fla.App.4th 1973), and the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in Parker v. Armstrong, 125 So.2d 138 (Fla.App.2d 1960), cert. den. 133 So.2d 321 The majority of this Court agrees that under certain circumstances the property owner should ha......
-
Rice v. City of Fort Lauderdale
...by the trial court. We are of the opinion that there is merit to defendants' request notwithstanding the holding of Parker v. Armstrong, Fla.App.1960, 125 So.2d 138, cert. den., 133 So.2d 321 (Fla.1961). In Parker, the Second District court held that the right to open and close rests with t......