Court Opinion

ID: 9698946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:04:35.00074+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:18.778011
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
concurring.
I am in full agreement with the majority opinion. The dissent is an able and persuasive argument on the facts that the valuation is too high. We do not sit as a jury in eminent domain cases. A search for true valuation is an elusive quest, and any “formula” is confounded by many variables, which this case demonstrates. As our cases clearly command, a jury award in eminent domain cases is peculiarly of a local nature, and will not be set aside unless it flows from passion, prejudice, or error in instructions as to the law. The dissent reveals that no such error is claimed here. All of the foundational requirements for the expert testimony, admittedly broad, have been met. The doctrine of judicial review does not permit an invasion of the jury prerogative. Judicial restraint commands that we exercise our powers within the limits that we ourselves have fixed for almost 100 years.