{
  "id": 1627479,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lavonne West NEWTON et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Newton",
  "decision_date": "1973-02-05",
  "docket_number": "5-6127",
  "first_page": "903",
  "last_page": "904",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 903"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "489 S.W.2d 804"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 821",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1724024
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0821-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 1841,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.827,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.960840580645569e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8495475991071294
    },
    "sha256": "702ad0dbeb58ca42249354cd255bf07bec006b5988f81f509c4915fdbf64dff6",
    "simhash": "1:c850a19a586dba5a",
    "word_count": 317
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lavonne West NEWTON et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a $15,000 verdict and judgment in a condemnation suit. The only argument for reversal is that the trial court should have sustained the condemnor\u2019s motion to strike the testimony of the landowners\u2019 expert witness with respect to the value of the land after the taking, because, in the language of the objection, he gave \u201cno fair and reasonable basis\u201d for his figures.\nIn our opinion the witness unquestionably gave a fair and reasonable basis for his opinion. He had been engaged in the real estate business in the county for 26 years, was familiar with the property, and explained the basis for his conclusions. In this court the appellant challenges the witness\u2019s opinion because (a) he thought the entire tract, of which .66 of an acre was taken, comprised 8.08 acres instead of 9.5 acres, and (b) he had observed the change in grade resulting from the new construction, but he was not able to say exactly what change was called for by the condemnor\u2019s plans for the improvement.\nThe actual objection, that the witness had given no fair and reasonable basis for his valuation, did not bring to the trial court\u2019s attention either of the deficiencies now being urged. Had the omissions been pinpointed, the witness could have been examined further in the light of the true facts, which were readily available. It is not our practice to reverse the action of the trial court when the error could have been easily remedied upon a proper objection. Smith v. Union Nat. Bank of Little Rock, 241 Ark. 821, 410 S.W. 2d 599 (1967).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Keys, Kenneth R. Brock and Regina W. Johns, for appellant.",
      "/. D. Patterson, Roger V. Logan, Jr. and W. Wade Berryhill, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lavonne West NEWTON et al\n5-6127\n489 S.W. 2d 804\nOpinion Delivered February 5, 1973\nThomas B. Keys, Kenneth R. Brock and Regina W. Johns, for appellant.\n/. D. Patterson, Roger V. Logan, Jr. and W. Wade Berryhill, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0903-01",
  "first_page_order": 953,
  "last_page_order": 954
}