Opinion ID: 2493631
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 7. This Court will consider: [3] I. Whether the trial court erred in admitting contested expert testimony on the valuation of a privately owned, public utility. II. Whether the trial court erred in denying Dedeaux's request for declaratory judgment on its inverse-condemnation claim. III. Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Gulfport using a depreciated cost methodology which included the cost of overcoming existing constraints. IV. Whether the trial court erred in prohibiting Dedeaux from cross-examining Stokes regarding his testimony at the first trial, deemed unreliable in Dedeaux I, and other prior related opinions. V. Whether the trial court erred in overruling Gulfport's objection to Elliott's testimony regarding alternatives and substitutes. VI. Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence, and then erred in peremptorily instructing the jury, that the highest and best use of the Dedeaux utility system is as an unregulated utility. VII. Whether the trial court erred in granting jury instructions which emphasized specific elements of damages. VIII. Whether the trial court erred in overruling Dedeaux's objection to Gulfport's closing argument. IX. Whether the trial court erred in denying Dedeaux's request for declaratory judgment on its equal-protection claim. X. Whether the trial court erred in denying Gulfport's Motion to Recover Excess Interest. XI. Whether the trial court erred in denying Gulfport's Motion to Reconsider Change of Venue.