{
  "id": 1600671,
  "name": "ARK. STATE HIGHWAY COMM'N v. Vernon E. McMILLAN Estate",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ark. State Highway Comm'n v. McMillan Estate",
  "decision_date": "1969-10-20",
  "docket_number": "5-5014",
  "first_page": "421",
  "last_page": "423",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "247 Ark. 421"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "445 S.W.2d 717"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "275 S. W. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 Ark. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1374075
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/169/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S. W. 2d 770",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10224713
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/158/0770-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 Ark. 500",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1342255
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/108/0500-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.518461695170957e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28295221072734356
    },
    "sha256": "ccb6d5dea3b78dbd5c5e3329ce75dad3f86099d6cb7b4d89b52537b1e7095bf4",
    "simhash": "1:efb8d72e216cdd84",
    "word_count": 526
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:29.213565+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARK. STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v. Vernon E. McMILLAN Estate"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conj\u00fcey Byrd, Justice.\nFor reversal of this eminent-domain action appellant Arkansas State Highway Commission relies upon the following points:\n\u201cI. The trial court erred in refusing to allow appellant\u2019s expert witness, Zack Mashburn, to testify whether he made an investigation to determine the intentions of Holiday Inn, Inc.\n\u201cII. The trial court erred in refusing the appellant\u2019s requested Instruction No. 7.\u201d\nUnder point I the record shows that counsel for appellant asked Mr. Zack Mashburn, an appraiser for the Highway Department, the following question: \u201cHave you made any investigation to determine the present intentions of Holiday Inn?\u201d Upon objection by counsel for appellee, the Vernon E. McMillan Estate, sustained by the trial court, the parties retired to chambers where counsel stated: \u201cYour Honor, I would like to ask the witness if he made an investigation to determine the intentions of Holiday Inn, Inc., as of March 27, 1968, with regard to locating a Holiday Inn at the interchange of Interstate 30 and 270.\u201d The record fails to show what the witness would have said had he been p\u00e9rmitted to answer the question. The burden is on the one seeking to reverse a judgment of the trial court to show that he was prejudiced by the action of the court. Without a proffer of what the testimony would have been, we are not in a position to say that the action of the trial court was prejudicial. See City of Prescott v. Williamson, 108 Ark. 500, 158 S. W. 2d 770 (1913).\nThe alleged error under point II is the trial court\u2019s refusal to give the following instruction:\n\u201cYou are instructed that the law.of Arkansas requires a property owner to assess his property at 20% of its true value and you may, therefore, consider the value the landowner has placed on his property for tax purposes as evidence of its true value in arriving at your verdict. While this value is not a controlling factor, it is a factor you may properly consider.\u201d\nThe only proof on the assessed value of the land is testimony of Mr. Mashburn, as follows:\n\u201cQ. Did you in making your appraisal ascertain the value at which this property is assessed for the property tax purposes? \u2022\n\u201cA. Yes.\n\u201cQ. What was that evaluation?\n\u201cA. Eighty dollars.\u201d\nUnder this state of the record there is no showing what value the landowner placed on his property for tax purposes \u2014 i. e., the only showing is the assessed value on the tax hook, which may have been the valuation of the personal representative appointed by the court, see Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 84-421 (Repl. 1960), or an adjusted valuation made by the assessor, see Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 84-437 (Repl. 1960). Since the instruction is predicated upon facts not in the record it was properly refused by the trial court, See Texas Pipeline Company v. Johnson, 169 Ark. 235, 275 S. W. 329 (1925).\nFinding no error, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conj\u00fcey Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Keys and Kewneth R. Brock, for appellant.",
      "James C. Cole, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARK. STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v. Vernon E. McMILLAN Estate\n5-5014\n445 S. W. 2d 717\nOpinion delivered October 20, 1969\nThomas B. Keys and Kewneth R. Brock, for appellant.\nJames C. Cole, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0421-01",
  "first_page_order": 443,
  "last_page_order": 445
}