{ "id": 1737898, "name": "Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Bowman", "name_abbreviation": "Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Bowman", "decision_date": "1963-10-14", "docket_number": "5-3029", "first_page": "51", "last_page": "55", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "237 Ark. 51" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "371 S.W.2d 138" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "224 Ark. 938", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1646657 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/224/0938-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S. W. 703", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "81 Ark. 13", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1530686 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/81/0013-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S. W. 1003", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ark. 421", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1548615 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/92/0421-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S. W. 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519146 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S. W. 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519169 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0243-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 445, "char_count": 6730, "ocr_confidence": 0.52, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1940366107981016e-07, "percentile": 0.5920318134377719 }, "sha256": "d21b6678625a5d484a3fcfd99001804d352ff29d6ac49f2befa4b056570978ef", "simhash": "1:159d0c5564d2333d", "word_count": 1144 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:18.904164+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Ward, J., concurs." ], "parties": [ "Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Bowman." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice.\nThis appeal arises from eminent domain proceedings in Scott County to condemn land for highway purposes along Highway 270 near Wye City. On July 21, 1961, appellant Arkansas. State Highway Commission, filed a complaint and declaration of taking and deposited the sum of $400.00 for Tract 42 belonging to appellees Tyrus and Deen Bowman, $1,250.00 for Tract 44 (appellees W. G-. and Nova Sullivan), $350.00 for Tract 46 (appellees Garrett and Edna Shaddon), and $450.00 for Tract 47 (appellee R. D. Rose). The Scott Circuit Court entered an order giving appellant possession of the property as of July 21, 1961. On May 11, 1962, at pre-trial conference the court combined the above tracts for trial. Trial was held on June 13, 1962. After deliberation, the jury found that just compensation for Tract 42 was $2,500.00, for Tract 44 was $3,000.00, for Tract 46 was $1,750.00, and for Tract 47 was $1,300.00. From judgments on the verdicts, appellant has appealed.\nThis is a companion case to Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Carpenter et al., also handed down today. These cases were tried and appealed in the same week, they involved the same highway, same attorneys and many of the same witnesses. The points relied upon for reversal are substantially the same, as are the briefs. The records, of course, are not identical, and we must therefore determine this case on its own merits.\nAppellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling the Highway Commission\u2019s motion to strike the testimony of the landowner\u2019s value witness, Donald Roderick, because the witness did not determine the just compensation due for the property on a before and after basis.\nThe witness testified on direct examination as to his opinion of just compensation for the partial taking of appellees\u2019 property on a before and after basis. However, on cross-examination appellant\u2019s attorney elicited the following testimony from the witness:\n\u201cQ. Now, Don, let me ask you this: You placed a value of $17,500 on the property before the taking. You have enumerated these elements of damage and have subtracted them from the $17,500 to get your after figure, is that correct?\nA. Well, I have taken various things into consideration in doing that.\nQ. But is that essentially what you have done?\nA. No sir.\nQ. How have you arrived at this figure then?\nA. The element of damage, you mean?\nQ. The after figure, what the property is worth after the taking?\nA. I have had to estimate in various ways\u2014I don\u2019t know some of the things.\nQ. Now you have enumerated these items that you\u2019ve given me here. Have you subtracted those items from the before figure to get your after figure?\nA. Yes sir.\u201d\nThis testimony, standing alone, without considering it together with all of the witness\u2019 testimony, does appear to be somewhat contradictory. However, in order to avoid any confusion, the trial court immediately gave the following admonition to the jury:\n\u201cNow, Ladies and Gentlemen, in so far as any .of these items like replacement of fence\u2014these various specific items of damage which Mr. Roderick has enumerated, you understand, as I told you in the beginning, they in themselves\u2014not any one of them or the sum total constitutes the measure of the just compensation to be arrived at in this case and they are only admitted to you as an aid in determining what the difference before and after would be and you are not to consider them at all unless you find that they are reasonable and where applicable are necessary and are to be considered under all the circumstances in the case. Now I want to caution you to base your verdict solely upon what you find the difference to be between the value\u2014the market value of the land before the taking and the market value after the taking.\u201d\nAppellant forcefully contends that the witness\u2019 testimony indicates that he determined the before value, \u25a0estimated the damage to the property and subtracted that figure from the before value to arrive at his after value. Appellant\u2019s contention is not substantiated by the record. Recapitulation of the witness\u2019 damage figures compared with his before and after values, contained in appellant\u2019s brief, clearly show that there is no such close correlation between the figures as would justify such a conclusion.\nAppellant moved to strike all the testimony of this witness. This court has long held a motion to exclude all of the testimony of a witness was properly overruled if a part of it was competent. Taylor v. McClintock, 87 Ark. 243, 112 S. W. 405; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Taylor, 87 Ark. 331, 112 S. W. 745; Nichols v. State, 92 Ark. 421, 122 S. W. 1003. Without detailing the testimony further, appellant admitted the qualification' of appellees\u2019 expert, who in the past has done appraisal work for the State Highway Department. Suffice it to say, some of this witness\u2019 testimony was competent. This being true, we find no error in the trial court\u2019s ruling.\nAppellant further contends that the jury verdict on the Rose property, Tract 47, was excessive and beyond its power. Appellee Rose did not testify in his own behalf as to the value of his property. Appellees\u2019 value witness testified that the damage' sustained by the Rose property was $1;000.00, whereas appellant\u2019s witnesses assessed the damages at $650.00 and $400.00. The verdict is $300.00 above any testimony, and is therefore excessive on its face as there is no evidence to support the verdict in that amount. See Dodd & Co. v. Read, 81 Ark. 13, 98 S. W. 703; Southern National Ins. Co. v. Williams, 224 Ark. 938, 277 S. W. 2d 487.\n'\u2022 The judgments in favor of appellees Bowman, Sullivan and Shaddon are affirmed. The judgment in favor of appellee Rose is affirmed upon condition that a remittitur in the sum of $300.00 be entered within seventeen calendar days; otherwise the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.\nWard, J., concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice." }, { "text": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice\n(concurring). I am not dissenting in this case as I did in the companion case, Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Joella Carpenter, et al. (No. 3028), because the factual situations in the two cases are not the same.\nI am concurring for the following reasons. First, conceding that the before and after rule was followed, it is immaterial that some of the elements of damages were incorrect. Second, if the before and after rule was not applied, then none of the elements of damages was pertinent and the rule announced in Taylor v. McClintock has no application.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice" } ], "attorneys": [ "Dowell Anders, H. Clay Robinson and Don Langston, for appellant.", "Donald Poe, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Bowman.\n5-3029\n371 S. W. 2d 138\nOpinion delivered October 14, 1963.\nDowell Anders, H. Clay Robinson and Don Langston, for appellant.\nDonald Poe, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0051-01", "first_page_order": 73, "last_page_order": 77 }