Court Opinion

ID: 9844838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:10:07.521481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:44.923324
License: Public Domain

GIBSON, C. J.
I dissent.
The instructions requested by defendants are materially different from those given in City of Los Angeles v. Cole, 28 Cal.2d 509 [170 P.2d 928], In that case we approved instructions to the effect that the price paid by plaintiff condemner for other property is not a proper basis for determining the market value of the property sought to be condemned for the reason that such sales are not a fair test of just compensation. The instructions refused here state that the price paid by any public corporation having the right or power of condemnation is not a proper basis for the determination of market value. It is obvious that the requested instructions would broaden the rule so as to preclude evidence of other sales to a public body even though the transaction was in fact free of any compulsive elements. The majority opinion is therefore incorrect in stating that the requested instructions are “almost identical” with those approved in City of Los Angeles v. Cole, supra. I believe that the requested instructions erroneously state the law applicable to the facts of this ease and that the court properly refused to give them. In this connection it should be noted, as pointed out by Justice Spence in his dissent, that the majority overrules City of Los Angeles v. Cole, supra, the authority relied upon to reverse the judgment, and holds that evidence of other sales to a condemner is admissible. The majority also overrules a long line of cases and announces a new rule holding that evidence of the prices paid for similar property in the vicinity is admissible on direct examination, although in the present case no such evidence was offered on direct examination, and the parties concede that the question was not raised at the trial.. I would affirm the judgment.
Respondent’s petition for a rehearing was denied July 16, 1957. Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., and Spence, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted. '