{
  "id": 8725674,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. V. C. LUGAR et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Lugar",
  "decision_date": "1974-07-08",
  "docket_number": "74-75",
  "first_page": "879",
  "last_page": "881",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ark. 879"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "511 S.W.2d 157"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "228 Ark. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718653
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/228/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 Ark. 1010",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1730869
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/239/1010-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 3094,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.859,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2085953659846578
    },
    "sha256": "897d4bf42f600ae19851d416338469218a8416b26410b36f9b38ad3098566316",
    "simhash": "1:d32cbd858ad6d46f",
    "word_count": 537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Jones. J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. V. C. LUGAR et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nAt the trial of this condemnation suit the landowner, on direct examination, mentioned an offer that he had had for the purchase of the property. The court admonished the jury not to consider the testimony. The appellant contends that the error was so prejudicial that a mistrial should have been granted. We do not agree.\nThe landowner testified that he bought the property in 1956 and considered it to be a good investment. The record then continues:\nQ. And you intended to hold it. Is that the reason you held on to that after you moved away from here to go to Alabama to live?\nA. Oh, yes, sir. I had many opportunities, you know, to sell it. In fact, people wrote to me quite often wanting to buy this property, and well, I even had a return of fifty thousand dollars. . .\nUpon objection the judge and the attorneys went into chambers, where the judge denied the condemnor\u2019s motion for a mistrial and stated that the jury would be instructed to disregard the statement. The court promptly gave this admonition to the jury:\nLadies and gentlemen, I don\u2019t know whether any of you heard the remarks the witness made or not, I didn\u2019t hear it, but I am told what he said, and what he said, of course, is not at all admissible in this trial and not to be considered by you as evidence at all; so if any of you heard it, you will please totally and completely and absolutely disregard it. It is not evidence in this case. Does everybody understand that? Proceed.\nWe find the court\u2019s admonition to have been sufficient to cure the error. In a situation such as this one the trial judge must be given broad authority, for he is in the best position to assess the possibility of prejudice. See Ark. State Highway Commn. v. Shepherd, 239 Ark. 1010, 395 S.W. 2d 743 (1965). That the answer was not responsive to the question is important, Ragon v. Day, 228 Ark. 215, 306 S.W. 2d 687 (1957), since that fact shows that there was no deliberate effort to bring in inadmissible testimony. Moreover, the court\u2019s admonition was prompt, clear, and emphatic.\nThe appellant\u2019s most persuasive argument rests upon the amount of the jury\u2019s verdict, $50,000, which is the identical amount of the inadmissible offer mentioned by the landowner. We are not persuaded, however, that the jury disregarded the court\u2019s admonition and seized upon one sentence in the testimony as the basis for its verdict. If the verdict had coincided with an inadmissible figure ending in odd dollars and cents, counsel\u2019s argument would be practically unanswerable. But here the amount, $50,000, is not only a convenient round number, but it lies fairly near the middle point between the maximum value of $68,350 fixed by one of the landowners\u2019 expert witnesses and the minimum value of $24,000 fixed by the condemnor\u2019s expert witness. We conclude that prejudicial error is not shown.\nAffirmed.\nJones. J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Keys and George 0. Green, for appellant.",
      "Catlett & Henderson, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. V. C. LUGAR et ux\n74-75\n511 S.W. 2d 157\nOpinion delivered July 8, 1974\nThomas B. Keys and George 0. Green, for appellant.\nCatlett & Henderson, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0879-01",
  "first_page_order": 921,
  "last_page_order": 923
}