Court Opinion

ID: 9703443
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:56:15.558515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:36.205111
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN dissenting: The majority opinion properly acknowledges that expenditures made and costs incurred in adopting the land to use after the improvement are relevant as evidence of the depreciation and not as recoverable items in themselves. However, the majority reverses because this evidence was not related to the diminution of the fair cash market value. This objection was not made in the trial court and this contention has not been made in this court. The only objection made is that the estimated costs were not admissible in evidence. There are other reasons for reversal stated in the majority opinion which were not made in the trial court or in this court.