Court Opinion

ID: 9677666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:56:53.977684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:57.460545
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
However stated, the majority now adopts a rule in real estate appraisal cases that accords to the jury’s *852view an almost mystical quality. The viewing of the property or, rather, the personal impressions of a jury or a fact finder during the viewing are not capable of review by this court. In doing so, we have removed a yardstick used by trial judges to determine whether a verdict is within the range of the evidence.
The majority has overruled, indeed, the clear Nebraska precedent of Wagner v. State, 176 Neb. 589, 126 N.W.2d 853 (1964), which is directly contrary to the result reached here. Chaloupka v. State, 176 Neb. 746, 127 N.W.2d 291 (1964), on which the majority relies, is not particularly helpful to the majority. In that case we reversed the trial court’s order granting a motion for new trial. The verdict, however, was within the extremes of the lay and expert witness testimony as to value. It did not address the question in this case, and the extended discussion in that case of the magic of a jury’s view was and is largely dicta.
The majority has also cast us into a minority position among the many appellate courts which have considered this question. See Annot., 1 A.L.R.3d 1397 at 1434 (1965).