{
  "id": 8719998,
  "name": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lester WRIGHT et ux",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1979-09-17",
  "docket_number": "79-74",
  "first_page": "497",
  "last_page": "499",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ark. 497"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "585 S.W.2d 955"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "432 S.W. 2d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 Ark. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1606902
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/245/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1737912
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0039-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 Ark. 812",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723941
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/242/0812-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 3013,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.903,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20851312180748763
    },
    "sha256": "c62edc90f4b9f28b7196e31d35ba436b78643f44c4d877b89d79a14e5ef0f6c4",
    "simhash": "1:002e2ca633149fea",
    "word_count": 495
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lester WRIGHT et ux"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nIn this eminent domain proceeding, the appellant acquired fee title to .36 acres of a three acre tract of commercial real estate land from the appellees. The jury awarded $20,000 as just compensation.\nAppellant first contends that the court erred in permitting appellees\u2019 expert witness, Evans, to testify to severance damages after testifying to the market value of the part taken. Appellant argues that the proper measure of damages in eminent domain cases in which a partial taking is involved is the difference in the market value of the whole property before the taking and the value after the taking less any enhancement to the remainder, citing Young v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 242 Ark. 812, 415 S.W. 2d 575 (1967). We need not reach the merits of this argument since it is well established that when part of a witness\u2019 testimony is admissible, it is proper for the court to refuse, as here, a motion to strike the witness\u2019 entire testimony. Urban Renewal Agency of Harrison v. Hefley, 237 Ark. 39, 371 S.W. 2d 141 (1963); Young v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, supra; and Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Maus, 245 Ark. 357, 432 S.W. 2d 748 (1968). Here appellees\u2019 value witness, Evans, admittedly an expert witness, testified on direct examination that the value of the land taken was $23,500. Over appellant\u2019s objection, however, he was also permitted to testify that the remaining property suffered $6,000 in severance damages because of the taking. Evans\u2019 testimony, as an expert witness as to the total value of the land taken, was unquestionably proper. Therefore the court properly refused to strike his testimony in its entirety.\nAppellant next asserts that the court erred in permitting the testimony of appellees\u2019 witness, Magness, to go to the jury and in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for a mistrial. Again the appellant moved to strike this witness\u2019 testimony in its entirety. This witness, as did Evans, testified as to the sale price of other properties in the vicinity of the condemned property. This testimony is admissible if it is shown, as here, that the pieces of property are similar or comparable to the condemned tract. Here Magness testified to the sale price of similar property he had purchased in the vicinity for his own use. This tract and the property being taken had \u201cgood easement drive off\u201d and substantial highway frontage. His testimony of comparable sales in the vicinity was admissible. The court properly refused to strike his testimony in its entirety. Furthermore, any possible prejudice was removed when the court, by consent of the appellees, instructed the jury to disregard all of Magness\u2019 testimony with reference to the value he placed on the lands taken or any just compensation to the appellees.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas B. Keys and Philip N. Gowen, for appellant.",
      "Ernie E. Wright, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Lester WRIGHT et ux\n79-74\n585 S.W. 2d 955\nOpinion delivered September 17, 1979\n(In Banc)\nThomas B. Keys and Philip N. Gowen, for appellant.\nErnie E. Wright, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0497-01",
  "first_page_order": 523,
  "last_page_order": 525
}