State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dalton, 58196
Decision Date | 10 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 58196,58196 |
Citation | 498 S.W.2d 801 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION of Missouri, Relator, v. The Honorable Donald E. DALTON, Judge, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert L. Hyder, Jefferson City, Gregory F. Hoffman, Kirkwood, for relator.
Paul F. Niedner, St. Charles, Reginald P. Bodeux, St. Louis, Niedner, Moerschel, Nack & Ahlheim, St. Charles, for respondent.
In this original proceeding in prohibition, relator seeks to prohibit respondent from enforcing an order that relator's prospective 'expert' witnesses in a condemnation action divulge their 'conclusions' as reflected in appraisal reports which they prepared at the request of and for relator.
Factually, it appears that on July 14, 1972, relator initiated an action in St. Charles County, Missouri, to condemn certain real property of several named landowners for improvement of State Highway No. 61; that relator, as the condemning authority, employed certain supposedly qualified individuals to appraise the properties and determine the extent of damage; that on August 20, 1972, the landowners issued a Notice To Take Depositions of the appraisers employed by relator and a Subpoena Duces Tecum for them to produce their 'appraisal reports'; that on August 22, 1972, in response to said notice, one of relator's appraisers appeared for questioning but upon advice and objection posed by relator (based on Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.01(b), V.A.M.R.) he refused to reveal his ultimate conclusions reference damages; that such objections were certified to the trial court; that subsequent thereto an order of condemnation was entered on September 22, 1972; that, thereafter, the trial court on December 4, 1972, entered the order which relator now seeks to avoid.
We have read the deposition but need not detail all of the questions asked, State ex rel. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Dowd, 448 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1969), nor set out in full the order entered. It is sufficient to say that the order called for the witnesses to divulge their conclusions or 'not be permitted' to testify at trial. From a reading of the lengthy order, it is quite apparent that the trial court was aware of the general law on the subject, i.e '. . . that the work product in question is privileged as having been prepared by relator's agent in anticipation of litigation.' State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Jensen, 362 S.W.2d 568, 570 (Mo. banc 1962). For instance, a portion of the order provided: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n v. Anderson, 68446
...in question is finally adjudicated." Washington University Medical Center v. Komen, 637 S.W.2d at 54. In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dalton, 498 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1973), the trial court entered an order pertaining to discovery after the initial hearing had been held and bef......
-
Carthen v. Jewish Hosp. of St. Louis
...trial, or which express the conclusions of a party's expert, to be work product and not subject to discovery. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dalton, 498 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo. banc 1973); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Kalivas, 484 S.W.2d 292, 293 (Mo.1972); State ex rel......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp. Com'n v. Anderson
...and memoranda of appraisers in a condemnation action are work product and not discoverable, the Commission cites State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dalton, 498 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1973); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Jensen, 362 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. banc 1962); and State ex r......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Highway and Transp Com'n v. Pully
...of appraisers in condemnation actions are not discoverable either because they are privileged as held in State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dalton, 498 S.W.2d 801 (Mo. banc 1973); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Kalivas, 484 S.W.2d 292 (Mo.1972); and State ex rel. State Hig......