Court Opinion

ID: 9695457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:20:16.497852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.837469
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the majority opinion for the reasons enumerated in the dissenting opinion filed in Fulmer v. State, ante p. 664, 134 N. W. 2d 798.
It is a useless gesture and no more than a mere exercise in sematics to say that taking control of outside advertising on land is compensable and then to apply a rule which permits a zero verdict. As I pointed out in the other dissent, this court is responsible for the rule of damages applied. If that rule does not effectuate the constitutional mandate, it should be changed. To hold otherwise is to condone legal confiscation in condemnation actions and to make a mockery of our constitutional provisions.