Court Opinion

ID: 9683558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:31:30.018006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:48.770173
License: Public Domain

DOGGETT, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in today’s judgment because of my confidence in the jury system. In this case, the jury should be able to consider evidence of a common value between the portion of property taken and that not taken. In State v. Meyer, 403 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.1966), a valuation based on the worth of the entire property was rejected because “it is beyond dispute that the land being condemned had, at the time of the taking, a significantly higher per acre market value than the land not being condemned....” Id. at 375 (emphasis in the original). Here, the State seeks to offer evidence that all of the property, the taken as well as the un-taken, shared an equal value. See 803 S.W.2d at 340. Whether that evidence supports a finding of a shared value is properly determined by a jury. See City of Richardson v. Smith, 494 S.W.2d 933, 938-39 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.).