Opinion ID: 2498646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Exclusion of Comparable Sales

Text: Landowner's last evidentiary challenge on this appeal concerns what it says were its unsuccessful efforts to present evidence of two sales it characterizes as comparable. Neither was considered by the City's experts. One of these sales was made in 2004 to Pizza Hut and the other in 1995 to KDOT. At oral argument before us, landowner's counsel abandoned this claim of error regarding the KDOT sale, which, he conceded, was too remote in time from the taking. Landowner asserts that it planned to get evidence of the Pizza Hut sale for $13,640,934 before the jury during Saroff's testimony, specifically, when he was instructed to draw some numbers on the easel. The City's objection and the court's ensuing ruling having to do with Saroff's reliance on the nontestifying Heavey and, in turn, the absent Larva, stopped Saroff before he could comply with the direction to draw some numbers. But landowner says that Saroff's planned demonstration would have begun with the Pizza Hut sale number. Landowner also claims that it attempted to introduce the same number during the cross-examination of the City's experts. The problem for us on appeal is that landowner directs us to no ruling by the district court on the admissibility of the Pizza Hut sale, and our search of the record has uncovered none. Under Supreme Court Rule 6.02 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 39), this court presumes the district court did not rule on an issue when an appellant fails to provide a record citation to the ruling in its brief. See Kansas Medical Mut. Ins. Co. v. Svaty, 291 Kan. 597, 623, 244 P.3d 642 (2010) (citing Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Beachner Constr. Co., 289 Kan. 1262, 1275, 221 P.3d 588 [2009]). Without a ruling from the district court on this issue, we cannot proceed with formless appellate review.