Court Opinion

ID: 6743368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 23:38:24.364808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:02:00.458489
License: Public Domain

ROSS, PJ.
It has been repeatedly held that this court has such jurisdiction from all courts of record in this state, by virtue of the provisions of Article IV, §6 of the Ohio Constitution.
Other grounds urged in support of the motion are found to be unsupported, and the motion is overruled.
An examination of the record discloses that upon the first trial of this cause the jury rendered the following verdict:
*112“1. Compensation for land taken, including compensation for all improvements thereon if you find that .residence is entirely appropriated $-
“2. Compensation for land taken, including compensation for all improvements thereon if you find that residence is not entirely appropriated ..............................$ 980.00
“3. Damages to the residue of the property: ........................ $ 2995.00 $ 3975.00”
And in the last trial the verdict was as follows:
“1. Compensation for land taken, and for all improvements' thereon, if you find that improvements are entirely appropriated .......... $-
“2. Compensation for land taken, and for improvements thereon, if not entirely appropriated ........$5,130.00
“3. Damages to residue: ........$1,845.00
Total..........................$6,975.00”
A review of the record convinces the entire court that the last verdict is manifestly against the weight of the evidence, and that the former verdict is much more nearly correct than the latter.
In the absence of the acceptance of a remittitur to the extent of $1975.00, the case will be remanded for a new trial. If such remittitur is accepted, the judgment, modified to the extent of the remittitur, will be affirmed.
HAMILTON and CUSHING, JJ, concur.