State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 360 |
| Citation | 281 Ala. 430,203 So.2d 447 |
| Parties | STATE v. EAST WOODLAND HILLS, INC., et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
McQueen, Flowers & Ray, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Clement, Rosen, Hubbard & Waldrop, and Gordon Davis, Tuscaloosa, for appellees.
The state appealed to the Circuit Court of Tuscaloosa County, a final order of condemnation entered by the Probate Court of Tuscaloosa County.
The land condemned consisted of 21.7 acres and was condemned upon the application of the state for use as a right-of-way for a limited access interstate highway. The land condemned is within the corporate limits of the City of Tuscaloosa. It lies contiguous to an already developed subdivision known as Woodland Hills. The condemned right-of-way took approximately 700 feet of frontage on U.S. Highway 11, leaving no direct access thereto, and no direct access to the interstate highway to be built.
The right of the state to condemn the subject land was not questioned in the Circuit Court and all parties agree that the only issue submitted to the jury in the proceedings in the Circuit Court, was the amount of damages and compensation to be awarded.
An expert witness offered by the state testified that the damages resulting from the condemnation of the tract in question were $35,000.00.
On the other hand, some six expert witnesses offered by the respondents assessed the damages from a low of $110,300.00 to a high of $148,000.00.
The jury fixed such compensation and damages at $82,500.00, and judgment was entered accordingly.
Thereafter the state filed a motion for a new trial containing a large number of grounds, several of which assert the excessiveness of the damages awarded. The motion for a new trial being overruled, the state perfected this appeal.
In brief counsel for appellant has set forth three propositions of law. All of these propositions outline in general terms rules relating to evidence which may be properly admitted, or should be excluded, in condemnation proceedings.
The argument portion of the brief has been divided into three sections. In Section I, counsel for appellant has jointly argued Assignments of Error 11 and 20. Each of the assignments relates to rulings on objections interposed to questions seeking evidence not specifically related to the amount of damages to be awarded.
In Section II, counsel has grouped for argument some eight assignments of error. Again, the argument under this section is directed solely toward the admission of evidence of various witnesses for the appellee as to their method of arriving at the amount of damages suffered by the appellee.
In Section III, counsel at the outset states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long
...426, 186 So.2d 140; State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71, 189 So.2d 912; State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728; State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., 281 Ala. 430, 203 So.2d 447. "For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra (269 Ala. 44, 110 So.2d 280); Cooper v. Watts, 280 ......
-
Mims v. Mississippi Power Co.
...Ala. 426, 186 So.2d 140; State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71, 189 So.2d 912; State v. Peinhardt, 270 Ala. 627, 120 So.2d 728; State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., (Ala.) 203 So.2d 447. For other cases to like effect see Alabama v. Ferguson, supra; Cooper v. Watts, 280 Ala. 236, 191 So.2d 519; Souther......
-
Standard Oil Co. v. State
...State v. Davis, 282 Ala. 438, 212 So.2d 686 (1968); State v. Young, 281 Ala. 349, 202 So.2d 714 (1967); State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., 281 Ala. 430, 203 So.2d 447 (1967); State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132 (1966); State v. Jackson, 279 Ala. 425, 186 So.2d 139 (1966); State v.......
-
State v. Burroughs
...627, 120 So.2d 728; State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132; State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71, 189 So.2d 912; State v. East Woodland Hills, Inc., 281 Ala. 430, 203 So.2d 447. We have noted that in each of these cases the court pointed out that excessiveness of the verdict was not argued by t......