Court Opinion

ID: 9446239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:49:55.331335+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:34.777425
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
We are all agreed that the ruling of the court refusing to permit the farmer witnesses to testify as to the value of the land was error. That it was prejudicial error cannot be doubted. For as anyone *464who has lived in a farming area knows, the average juror in such a locality is apt to have a higher regard for the views of a dirt farmer than for the opinions of those whose ideas of land values are accumulated in a swivel chair or by driving past a few ranches.
The suggestion that appellants waived their point or “lulled the trial court into inaction” by failing to hand the judge citations will not bear analysis. When the citations were mentioned the judge had made his ruling, it was final, and there was no reservation about it. The only thing discussed was a possible effort to get the judge to change his mind. No rule I have ever heard of requires a lawyer to furnish citations under such circumstances. A judge is presumed to know the law. Most records reviewed by this court fail to show whether the trial judge was furnished one or a dozen or any citations. His rulings are reviewed nevertheless. Furthermore, the judge mentioned the evening as the time to bring the citations. I do not know that counsel did not go to the judge’s office or home that evening with citations. Whether he did or not is immaterial, but to expect the lawyer to file an affidavit that he had done so seems to me to require something unheard of. All this sounds to me like a suggestion that the trial court could say to appellant: “It is your fault for not making me change my mind.”
Just as irrelevant, in my view, is the suggestion that there might have been a pre-trial hearing at which the number of opinion witnesses might have been limited. That was not done; no such order was made; that was not the basis for the ruling, and for this court in effect retroactively, and at this stage, to apply such a limitation to appellant, is highly unjust to this litigant.
Of course this was an extended trial. That such prejudicial and plain error should occur is unfortunate. But the only way this court can do its duty as an appellate court is to impose the legal consequences of error.