{
  "id": 8521162,
  "name": "CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. VERA S. HEGE (Widow); RAYMOND G. HEGE and wife, ALICE HEGE; EDITH HEGE CROOK and husband, EDWARD J. CROOK; ELSIE HEGE KINNEY and husband, DANIEL KINNEY; and NANCY HEGE PARR and husband, JOHN A. PARR",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Winston-Salem v. Hege",
  "decision_date": "1983-03-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8221SC390",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "342",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. App. 339"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 S.E. 2d 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623661
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 861",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "863"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575354
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "371"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "267"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565180
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0025-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 377,
    "char_count": 6478,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.792,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.997273321952242e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5030439998625402
    },
    "sha256": "bae994fee43b02645e7f34efa935bbb0fe1317ac6c9c85e14d7a225fe3820266",
    "simhash": "1:9cbeca1dbe649087",
    "word_count": 1083
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:13:54.976609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WHICHARD and BRASWELL concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. VERA S. HEGE (Widow); RAYMOND G. HEGE and wife, ALICE HEGE; EDITH HEGE CROOK and husband, EDWARD J. CROOK; ELSIE HEGE KINNEY and husband, DANIEL KINNEY; and NANCY HEGE PARR and husband, JOHN A. PARR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe defendants argue by Assignment of Error Nos. 1, 2, and 4, based on Exception Nos. 8-16, that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury to consider the potential value of the property prior to taking based on the possibility of future rezoning. N.C. App. R. 10(b)(2) provides in part:\nNo party may assign as error any portion of the jury charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly that to which he objects and the grounds of his objection; provided, that opportunity was given to the party to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury and, on request of any party, out of the presence of the jury.\nThe record demonstrates that before the judge instructed the jury a conference was held with the attorneys representing the City and the landowners where the judge advised the attorneys as to how and what he was going to instruct the jury on the issue of damages. The parties were told specifically that the jury would be instructed that they would consider the highest and best use of the property at the time of its taking by the City, and that the jury would not consider \u201cany future or speculative use\u201d in relation to zoning. The parties were advised specifically that the jurors would be instructed to consider the property as it was zoned at the time of the taking (R-5). No objection was given by the landowners\u2019 attorneys at the time of the conference.\nThe record discloses that after the jury had been instructed, the trial judge, with specific reference to N.C. App. R. 10(b)(2), had another conference with the attorneys before the jury was sent out to deliberate. There is absolutely nothing in the record to indicate that the defendants raised any objection at that time with respect to the instructions.\nThe defendants\u2019 argument has no merit. The record affirmatively discloses that all parties were afforded ample opportunity to object to the \u201cjury charge\u201d out of the presence and hearing of the jury before the jury began its deliberations. The defendants made no request for instructions nor did they object in any way.\nThe defendants\u2019 contention that they were not afforded an opportunity to object when the jury came in for additional instructions is meritless. Obviously, N.C. App. R. 10(b)(2) has no application once the jury has begun its deliberations. Even so, the defendants\u2019 objection at the time (by the attorney\u2019s shaking his head) appears to have been directed to whether the property was zoned R-5 at the time of the taking. These assignments of error are not sustained.\nThe defendants next assign error to the trial judge\u2019s admission of testimony about comparable sales of land from two expert witnesses for the City. The properties being compared to the condemned property, the defendants contend, were grossly dissimilar and incapable of comparison. The record discloses that the trial judge conducted a voir dire examination of these witnesses before deciding that some of the properties were sufficiently similar to the property in the present case to admit evidence about their sales for comparison. When the evidence was heard before the jury, differences in the tracts being compared were brought out in detail during cross-examination.\nWhether property involved in a voluntary sale is sufficiently similar in nature, location and condition to the property appropriated by condemnation to admit evidence of its sale and the price paid therefor as a guide to the value of the condemned property is a question to be determined by the trial judge in the exercise of his sound discretion.\nHighway Commission v. Coggins, 262 N.C. 25, 28, 136 S.E. 2d 265, 267 (1964), cited in Redevelopment Comm. v. Panel Co., 273 N.C. 368, 371, 159 S.E. 2d 861, 863 (1968). See also, Barnes v. Highway Commission, 250 N.C. 378, 109 S.E. 2d 219 (1959). We find no abuse of discretion upon the part of the trial judge in admitting the evidence challenged by these exceptions.\nNo error.\nJudges WHICHARD and BRASWELL concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ronald G. Seeber, City Attorney and Ralph D. Karpinos, Assistant City Attorney for City of Winston-Salem, plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Booe, Mitchell, Goodson and Shugart, by William S. Mitchell for the defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITY OF WINSTON-SALEM v. VERA S. HEGE (Widow); RAYMOND G. HEGE and wife, ALICE HEGE; EDITH HEGE CROOK and husband, EDWARD J. CROOK; ELSIE HEGE KINNEY and husband, DANIEL KINNEY; and NANCY HEGE PARR and husband, JOHN A. PARR\nNo. 8221SC390\n(Filed 15 March 1983)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 31.1\u2014 assignment of error to failure to charge \u2014 necessity for objection at trial\nDefendants could not properly assign as error the trial court\u2019s failure to give certain instructions where the record shows that all parties were afforded ample opportunity to object to the instructions out of the presence and hearing of the jury before the jury began its deliberations but that defendants made no request for instructions and did not object in any way. App. Rule 10(b)(2).\n2. Eminent Domain \u00a7 6.2\u2014 evidence of value \u2014 comparable sales of land\nThe trial court in a condemnation proceeding did not abuse its discretion in the admission of testimony about comparable sales of land from two expert witnesses for the condemnor where the record disclosed that the court conducted a voir dire examination of the two witnesses before deciding that some of the properties were sufficiently similar to the property in question to admit evidence about their sales for comparison, and differences in the tracts being compared were brought out in detail during cross-examination when the evidence was heard before the jury.\nAPPEAL by defendants from Walker (H.H.), Judge. Judgment entered 7 December 1981 in Superior Court, FORSYTH County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 February 1983.\nThis is a civil action wherein the city sought to take by eminent domain for purposes of public water storage a tract of land owned by the defendants. The property, 5.94 acres located south of the city limits of Winston-Salem, was zoned Residential-5 (R-5) at the time of the taking. Prior to trial, all issues were resolved between the parties except the amount of compensation to be paid to the defendants.\nThe following issue was submitted to and was answered by the jury as indicated:\nWhat amount are the landowners entitled to recover from the City of Winston-Salem?\nAnswer: $46,200.\nFrom a judgment entered on the verdict, defendants appealed.\nRonald G. Seeber, City Attorney and Ralph D. Karpinos, Assistant City Attorney for City of Winston-Salem, plaintiff-appellee.\nBooe, Mitchell, Goodson and Shugart, by William S. Mitchell for the defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 371,
  "last_page_order": 374
}