Court Opinion

ID: 9789011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:24:29.821997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:18.598117
License: Public Domain

Beier, J.,
dissenting in part: I agree with the decision of Justices R.osen and Allegrucci in all respects save one with consequences. The admission of the purchase prices reflected in the certificates of value (COVs) was not only error; it was reversible error. The wide disparity in expert values, the relative mites shown on the COVs, and the jury’s ultimate valuation persuade me that the erroneous admission had unduly prejudicial impact. We are not cast members in “Wicked.” We cannot defy gravity. I would reverse and remand for a new trial without the evidence of the parcels’ purchase prices.
Davis, J., joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.