{
  "id": 1633409,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM'N v. Stella PITTMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Comm'n v. Pittman",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-20",
  "docket_number": "5-5687",
  "first_page": "709",
  "last_page": "711",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 Ark. 709"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "473 S.W.2d 924"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "209 Ark. 987",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1475797
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/209/0987-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 S. W. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1908,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ark. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1517123
      ],
      "year": 1908,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/88/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S. W. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1905,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1502497
      ],
      "year": 1905,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/75/0251-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4347,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.869,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5158292648850323e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6683974625547667
    },
    "sha256": "56492cf59fd7e87045049979add14777efe2cdb11c1d17e1bb20c33d5b1b44ca",
    "simhash": "1:f41d3dde346df207",
    "word_count": 694
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v. Stella PITTMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nBy this eminent domain action, the appellant acquired 34.63 acres of land from appellee\u2019s 160-acre farm tract for the construction of interstate highway 30 and an interchange. The interstate diagonally severs appellee\u2019s lands, leaving a residual of 122.27 acres on one side and a 3.1 acre residual on the other side of the interchange. Appellant presented evidence that construction of the interstate highway enhanced the value of the residuals in excess of the value of the whole property before the taking. However, the jury disagreed with appellant\u2019s theory of enhancement and awarded appellee $24,536.00 in damages.\nFor reversal appellant asserts that: After appellant\u2019s witness testified on direct examination that he sold a site on an interchange to Humble Oil Company and, on cross-examination, that Humble Oil Company did not talk to him about purchasing any other site it was error for the trial court to refuse to allow appellant to show that other oil companies had negotiated to purchase other sites on the interchange and the amount which they offered to pay.\nOne of appellant\u2019s witnesses, Mr. Hale, testified on direct examination that he owned property at the nearby interchange on interstate 30 and that he had sold, a portion of that property measuring 250 x 250 feet for $75,-000.00. On cross-examination by appellee, Mr. Hale testified, without objection, to the effect that Humble Oil Company didn\u2019t talk to him about buying any other site. Appellant asserts that this testimony created a prejudicial inference that other sites were less desirable and, therefore, \u201cthat the Trial Coiirt erred in then sustaining defendant\u2019s [appellee\u2019s] objection and not allowing the plaintiff [appellant] to combat the inference by showing, not only that other companies had made offers for the other quadrants, but the amount of the offers.\u201d In other words, appellant argues that this testimony was admissible to combat the appellee-landowner\u2019s contention that her property was not enhanced by construction of the highway.\nAt first the court sustained the appellee\u2019s objection to appellant\u2019s questioning Mr. Hale concerning his negotiations with a different oil company for the sale of another site at a nearby interchange. Appellant countered that appellee\u2019s question as to whether Humble evidenced any interest in any other locations \"opened up\u201d the subject and, therefore, gave appellant the right to inquire as to any negotiations, including offers and amounts. Finally, the trial court held, and appellee concurred, that proof was admissible as to any negotiations for sales between Mr. Hale and other or different prospective purchasers. However, the scope of the inquiry excluded the \"dollar amount\u201d of any offer on any incomplete transaction.\nIt is true, as appellant contends, that where one party introduces incompetent testimony, he cannot complain of the introduction of the same character of evidence directed to the same issue by the other party. German-American Ins. Co. v. Brown, 75 Ark. 251, 87 S. W. 135 (1905); St. Louis I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Flinn, 88 Ark. 484, 115 S. W. 142 (1908). This rebutting evidence is restricted to \u201csimilar evidence,\u201d the \u201csame subject,\u201d or to \"answering evidence\u201d in denial or explanation of the subject. Eaves v. Lamb, 209 Ark. 987, 193 S. W. 2d 328 (1946). See, also, I Wigmore on Evidence, \u00a7 15, p. 304; McCormick on Evidence, \u00a7 57, p. 132.\nIn the case at bar the appellant was permitted to interrogate Mr. Hale and another witness relating to all aspects of their negotiations to sell their property at a nearby interchange to other oil companies. The only restriction placed upon appellant\u2019s inquiry was the dollar amount involved in the negotiations of these incomplete sales. In our view, the trial court accorded the appellant ample latitude in its introduction of \"answering testimony\u201d to refute any inferences possibly created by appellee\u2019s opening up the \"subject\u201d on cross-examination, to which the appellant made no objection. Certainly it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretionary powers in limiting the scope of this inquiry.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Keys and Hubert E. Graves, for appellant.",
      "Tompkins, McKenzie ir McRae, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM\u2019N v. Stella PITTMAN\n5-5687\n473 S.W. 2d 924\nOpinion delivered December 20, 1971\nThomas B. Keys and Hubert E. Graves, for appellant.\nTompkins, McKenzie ir McRae, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0709-01",
  "first_page_order": 735,
  "last_page_order": 737
}