Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, by and through its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent, v. Thomas W. ZINK and Marsha A. Zink, Appellants, and PACIFIC FIRST BANK, a federal savings bank, successor in interest to Oregon Trail Savings & Loan Association, an Oregon corporation; North Pacific Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; and Gordon L. Yunker and Edwin A. Yunker, Defendants
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1993-04-21
Citations: 119 Or. App. 498
Docket Number: 9004-02041; CA A69265
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, by and through its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent, v. Thomas W. ZINK and Marsha A. Zink, Appellants, and PACIFIC FIRST BANK, a federal savings bank, successor in interest to Oregon Trail Savings & Loan Association, an Oregon corporation; North Pacific Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; and Gordon L. Yunker and Edwin A. Yunker, Defendants.
Judges: Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 119
Pages: 498–499

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 17,
affirmed April 21, 1993
STATE OF OREGON, by and through its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent, v. Thomas W. ZINK and Marsha A. Zink, Appellants, and PACIFIC FIRST BANK, a federal savings bank, successor in interest to Oregon Trail Savings & Loan Association, an Oregon corporation; North Pacific Insurance Company, a foreign corporation; and Gordon L. Yunker and Edwin A. Yunker, Defendants.
(9004-02041; CA A69265)
850 P2d 1171
G. Kenneth Shiroishi, Portland, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were George W. Mead, Jr. and Dunn, Carney, Allen, Higgins & Tongue, Portland.
Jas. Adams, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
In this condemnation action by the state to acquire property for street improvement purposes, defendant assign error to the trial court's denial of their motion in limine. They sought to exclude as evidence of value a county rule requiring the dedication of part of the property as a condition of its development. Although this case differs in some particulars from Dept. of Trans. v. Lundberg, 312 Or 568, 825 P2d 641, cert den_US_, 113 S Ct 467, 121 L Ed 2d 374 (1992), we conclude that that case is controlling here and is adverse to defendant's position.
Affirmed.