Court Opinion

ID: 9735966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:37:58.475356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:03.118637
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER, dissenting: The opinion of the court does not mention the error which prompted the dissenting opinion of Judge Burman in the appellate court. (132 Ill. App. 2d at 650, 270 N.E. 2d at 263.) That error was, in my opinion, a serious one, which warrants reversal. One of the condemnor’s two expert witnesses testified on direct examination that he had examined 14 or 15 parcels of property on Jackson Boulevard, including this one, for the condemnor. He was then asked the following improper question which evoked the following improper answer: “Q. And the other ones were disposed of, is that correct? A. As I understand, the others were all settled.” In his closing argument, the attorney for the condemnor stated: “If the Court please, likewise, ladies and gentlemen, you heard Mr. Clark tell about the other fourteen parcels. We can’t tell what we settled those parcels for. The law restrains us from doing that ***.” The prevailing opinion in the appellate court justified this argument on the ground that the attorney for the condemnor had a right to explain that the law did not permit him to tell the jurors what the other parcels were settled for “because Mr. Clark inadvertently mentioned the settlement of the other fourteen parcels, and the jury should not be left wondering why they weren’t told the amounts of the settlements. This was fair comment on the evidence.” 132 Ill. App. 2d at 649, 270 N.E.2d at 262-3. This justification is, in my opinion, both inaccurate and naive. It is inaccurate because the attorney’s remark cannot be classified as comment on the evidence; and it is naive because the initial improper response of the witness appears to have been invited rather than inadvertent. This court has held that “*** the cost of acquisition of other property by a condemning authority is never admissible. [Jefferson Park Dist. v. Sowinski, 336 Ill. 390.)” [Department of Public Works and Buildings v. Pellini, 7 Ill.2d 367,373.) To require the landowner to object, and thereby to underscore the objectionable evidence in the minds of the jury is, in my opinion, to reward improper conduct on the part of the condemnor. See Department of Business and Economic Development v. Brummel (1972), 52 Ill.2d 538.