Court Opinion

ID: 9768688
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:44:32.654246+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:42.751467
License: Public Domain

SHRUM, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur without reservation in the principal opinion. I write separately to emphasize a point made in the principal opinion, namely, that not every expert opinion that is based in part on another expert’s opinion is inadmissible.
In this case, however, the five experts had already formed independent opinions about the highest and best use of the farm, opinions they were asked to disregard. When the five experts offered their “opinions” of the value of the farm based on Boles’s opinion, they were, in effect, simply testifying about the results of their arithmetic calculations; they were no longer offering expert testimony. Under these circumstances, their testimony was prejudicial error.