State ex rel. Herman v. Lopez, 2
| Decision Date | 28 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 8 Ariz.App. 61,442 P.2d 884 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona ex rel. Justin HERMAN, Director, Arizona Highway Department, Appellant, v. Antonio LOPEZ, as his sole and separate property; Mercedes Yubeta, as her sole and separate property; Jesus Lopez, as his sole and separate property; Angelita Mills, as her sole and separate property; and Artemisa O'Campo, as her sole and separate property, Appellees. 518. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Stewart & Pickrell, by Robert Pickrell, Phoenix, Special Counsel, for appellant.
Hirsch, Van Slyke & Ollason, by Gerald B. Hirsch, Tucson, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a suit brought by the State of Arizona to condemn lands belonging to appellees situated in Santa Cruz County near Nogales, Arizona. Appellees were owners of 200.4 acres of land three miles north of the Nogales city limits. 4.7 acres were subject to an easement for existing Highway 89. The State took an additional 24.2 acres. Trial was held in September, 1967. The only issues tried were the value of the land taken and the damages to the remainder. The jury returned an award of $87,900 damages for the parcels taken and $52,100 for severance damages to the remainder, or a total award of $140,000. The court entered judgment on this amount September 26, 1967, and the State filed a motion for a new trial. The court ordered a remittitur in the sum of $35,900. This remittitur was accepted by the appellees. The State filed a second motion for a new trial, which was denied, and this appeal taken.
It is conceded that the character of the land was most desirable and that it adjoined the Meadow Hills Country Club of Nogales. The appraisers used the comparison method of appraisal, with a margin of from $1,800 per acre to $3,000 per acre. There was also testimony that the property in the Meadow Hills Country Club sells for as much as $6,000 per acre.
The State contends on appeal that the verdict of the jury is so large as to shock the conscience and sensibility of the court so as to raise a presumption that the verdict was a result of passion and prejudice, and thus could not be cured by a remittitur. The State also contends that in light of the evidence, the verdict is excessive notwithstanding the remittitur.
When we review these facts on appeal, we do so in the light most favorable to sustaining the judgment of the court below. If there is any reasonable evidence to support that judgment, it will be sustained. If it is based on conflicting testimony, the findings of the court will not be disturbed. Viliborghi v. Prescott School District, 55 Ariz. 230, 100 P.2d 178 (1940).
'It is further the rule that, where the amount of damages or the value of property or services is concerned, and a large number of witnesses fix varying sums as the proper estimate of the value of such damages, property, or services, the trial court and jury are not bound to fix in the verdict or judgment the exact sum testified to by any one of the witnesses, especially when their conclusions are based upon a large number of factors, but may take part of the necessary factors from the testimony of one witness, and part from that of another, And a result anywhere between the highest and the lowest estimates which may be arrived at by using the various factors appearing in the testimony in any combination Which is reasonable will be sustained by an appellate court.' (Emphasis supplied.) State Tax Commission of Arizona v. United Verde Extension Mining Co., 39 Ariz. 136, 140, 4 P.2d 395, 396 (1931).
The State contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United California Bank v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...Guerin, 10 Ariz.App. 205, 457 P.2d 745 (1969); City of Tucson v. LaForge, 8 Ariz.App. 413, 446 P.2d 692 (1968); State ex rel. Herman v. Lopez, 8 Ariz.App. 61, 442 P.2d 884 (1968); Schatt-Ajax Industries v. Churchill, 3 Ariz.App. 34, 411 P.2d 457 Mr. Shapiro was HRP's lead witness in both Ph......
-
District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency v. Thirteen Parcels of Land in Squares 859, 912, 934 and 4068 in District of Columbia
...jury (to determine) . . ..5 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 18.4(2) at 106-07 (rev. 3d ed. 1975).5 See, e. g., State ex rel. Herman v. Lopez, 8 Ariz.App. 61, 63, 442 P.2d 884, 886 (1968) (cross-examination of owner about how he arrived at valuation affects weight but not competency); McCaffery ......
-
City of Tucson v. LaForge
...an owner he was competent to so testify. Board of Regents, etc. v. Cannon, 86 Ariz. 176, 342 P.2d 207 (1959); State ex rel. Herman v. Lopez, 8 Ariz.App. 61, 442 P.2d 884 (1968). The City now complains that the trial court erred in restricting its cross-examination of the property owner and ......
-
American Nat. Bank and Trust Co. v. City of North Chicago, 2-86-0489
...21 Ill.Dec. 516, 381 N.E.2d 843, citing McCaffery v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co. (1912), 22 N.D. 544, 134 N.W. 749; State v. Lopez (1968), 8 Ariz.App. 61, 442 P.2d 884. The second approach reviewed by the Harper court holds that ownership does not qualify a person to testify to the value of re......