Document: 376 U.S. 192 84 S.Ct. 639 11 L.Ed.2d 629 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Louis T. MERZ et al. 2,872.88 ACRES OF LAND, etc., al., Petitioners, v. STATES. Nos. 65, 79. Argued Jan. 13 and 14, 1964. Decided Feb. 24, Rehearing Denied April 6, See 973, 1131. No. 65: Roger P. Marquis, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Denver W. Meacham, Clinton, Okl., respondents. 79: Forrest L. Champion, Jr., Columbus, Ga., petitioners. Harold S. Harrison, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 These cases present questions co cerning standards governing preparation review reports commissions appointed by district courts under Rule 71A(h) Federal Rules Civil Procedure1 to determine issue just compensation2 in eminent domain proceedings. Some property interests taken are fee some flowage easements, road clearance easements. 2 In 79 District Court instructed Commissioners on 'just compensation,' factors that could be considered determining it, weight given competent experts, burden proof, conduct hearing held, propriety viewing lands question. And they were file a written report 'setting forth separately your findings fact conclusions law amount compensation which you think each owner or claimant is entitled.' 3 65 gave no instructions Commissioners, so far as record shows. 4 The case was transcribed reporter. each, both landowners Government produced witnesses. effect easements agricultural uses mineral values contested. testimony widely at variance value fees. Severance damages also hotly improvements respects one property. 5 Commission filed it listed tract, following added dollar figure 'Damages Assessed.' objected adequacy report, result supplemental described greater detail stated highest best use land general purposes. that: (1) United States entitled take compensation; (2) determined subtracting landowners' immediately after taking from their before taking; (3) would put area not an case; (4) certain evidence pertaining tract simple stricken, Government's motion strike witness overruled. 6 three reports, covering landowner, filed. Each contained capsule re sume § all heard, and, fact, set description taken, lands' use, acreage remaining severance damage fees easement, total awards. had right compensation, including damages. One government objection been first addition placing lump sum interest allowed 'home place,' four miles away, yet granted $15,785 other portions without explication spite landowner's expert fixed damages, apart $12,435. second valued entire $52,500, $36,125, $12,700. experts did but assessed $34,000. Commission, any concerning improvements, awarded $52,950—a excess valuation placed full 400 acres expert—as about 330 acres. $3,500 though estimate $1,275. third $105,080 while own them $93,693. indication basis them. 7 79, Courts adopted Commissions' setting additional supplementary grounds decision nor further resolve objections tendered Government. Appeals affirmed, stating that, although there sharp conflict awards well within range conflicting testimony. 10 Cir., 306 F.2d 39, 42. remanded resubmission saying indicate credited discredited, degree based comparable sales, whether sales comparable, what extent depended opinions nonexpert 310 775, 777, 779. here writs certiorari. 372 974, 975, 83 1109, 141. 8 o commission justified facility with commissioners may inspect likelihood uniformity realized expeditiously. At same time, danger commissioners, unlike juries, expertise act deliberative body applying constitutional standards. A jury, until retires, sits direct supervision judge, who rules admissibility evidence, sees witnesses properly qualified polices hearing, keeping bounds. Then due course judge instructs jury law, answering inquiries its members have law. surveillance start finish subject judiicial control. Hence verdict worth many dollars overturned lack particularized findings. 9 however, establishes tribunal become free-wheeling, itself, unless close supervision. responsibility Court, selection responsible careful instruction That done cases. But should explain particularity qualifications witnesses, value, illustrative examples like. manner method conducting view property, limited purpose viewing. They kind inadmissible ruling it. Since has master's 53(e)(2), included. Conclusory alone sufficient, commission's shall accepted court 'unless clearly erroneous'; conclusory made these normally reviewable standard, even when reads record, will way knowing path took through maze evidence. Lewis, 308 453, 458. need make detailed such judges do try jury. we assume, laymen, inexperienced laymen can reveal reasoning deciding particular award, standard follow, line adopt, measure on. We say every contested raised must resolved separate finding fact. array subsidiary facts demonstrate ultimate soundly legally based. followed reaching award can, distinctly marked. Such requirement competence laymen; like judges,3 give more consideration problem if required state only end inquiry, process reached it.4 Moreover, litigants assist specifying instructions, offering alternate ones, making timely specific, rather than generalized form, equity practice. Sheffield & Birmingham Coal, Iron R. Co. Gordon, 151 285, 290, 291, 14 343, 344—345, 38 L.Ed. 164. 12 If those procedures adopts guidelines help 'clearly erroneous' meaning 53(e)(2). leaves doubt, alternatives. It 'modify' 'may reject whole part receive recommit instructions'—all provided opportunity 53(e)(2) afresh, light this opinion. write clean slate against background contrariety views among circuits. leave much desired, measured suggested. None On remand, informed discretion used matters resubmitted respective whether, exigencies case, itself disputes existing records (see 44.00 Acres Land, 234 410, 414; Twin City Power Co., 248 108, 112; Certain Interests Property, 296 264, 268; Carroll, 304 300, 303—304), supplemented supra, 303—304. judgment reversed judgments modified proceedings conformity ordered. Reversed part, remanded. provides: '(h) Trial. 'If action involves exercise power States, specially constituted Act Congress trial determination issue; party filing demand therefor time answer fix, orders because character, location, quantity condemned, reasons justice, persons powers master subdivision (c) 53 governed provisions paragraphs (d) 53. Its majority effect, dealt accordance practice, prescribed paragraph (e) Trial issues otherwise court.' provides relevant part: '(e) Report. '(II) Non-Jury Actions. tried accept erroneous. Within days being served notice serve thereto upon parties. Application 6(d). adopt modify instructions.' As history see Moore, Practice (2d ed. 1955), pp. 2709—2712; Nealy, Condemnation Proceedings, 23 Fed. Bar Jour. 45 (1963); H.R.Rep. 739, 82d Cong., 1st Sess.; S.Rep. 502, 112, 83d Preliminary Draft Proposed Govern Cases, Advisory Committee Procedure, June 1947. For operation Annual Report, Judicial Conference 1961, 17, 106, 254; 1962, 30, 212—214; 1467, 86th 2d Sess., p. 11. No question presented notwithstanding 71A(h). While asked cases, preserved brought here. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc., 371 156, 167—168, 239, 245—246, 207; Forness, 125 928, 942—943; 456. Hague Convention October 18, 1907, Article arbitration 'must based.' Chief Hughes—then Secretary State—said involving provision: 'does mean statement cast artificial less defeated recognize adequate.' State President Harding, 11, 1923, II Foreign Relations 617, 620.

Category: 8