Court Opinion

ID: 9672238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:51:22.526773+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:18:32.292310
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(concurring). I am constrained to agree with the Chief Justice in his statement that:
“The controlling issue is whether the diversion of traffic is an element of damages in condemnation proceedings.”
Despite my esteemed colleague’s  able and heroic efforts to apply the “before and after” value rule to this case, an award of $15,650 for the 1.3 acres of *317land here involved is infirm. Either diversion of traffic'was considered an element of damage, or the amotmt is so fantastically unrealistic as to mandate its vacation in any event.
I concur with the Chief Justice.
Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this-case.