UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
T. W. FERGUSON AND EDITH R. FERGUSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the landowners were justly compensated and the commission's report and damage calculation were not erroneous.
Landowners appealed the condemnation commission's report and damage calculation, arguing it did not meet directives and used an erroneous formula for …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Highest And Best Use cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant landowners urge upon this court their exceptions to the report of the Condemnation Commission as affirmed by the District Court. They first complain that the report of the Commission did not meet the directives set forth in United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 84 S.Ct. 639, 11 L.Ed.2d 629 (1964).1 Other exceptions question the Commission’s finding that the highest and best use of the flowage easement was for agricultural purposes and complain that the formula used for ascertaining the measure of damages caused by estimated intermittent flooding of appellants’ lands was erroneous. With these contentions this court does not agree.
A thorough review of the record shows that the Commission scrupulously followed the instructions of the appointing authority. As disclosed by the minutes of the Clerk of the Court, a part of the record, every facet of Commission procedure outlined in Merz was adhered to. And, as required, “the path followed by the commissioners in reaching the amount of the award can * * * be distinctly marked.” It is unnecessary to question whether the issue was timely raised.2
We affirm the district judge in his finding that the landowners have been justly compensated for all burdens and restrictions placed upon their land, and agree that the record reveals no error. It is apparent that the Commissioners, under the instructions given them, correctly followed the principles expressed by this court in United States v. Willis, 141 F. 2d 314 (4th Cir. 1944) and United States v. Twin City Power Company, 248 F. 2d 108 (4th Cir. 1957). The market value of the land was used as a basis for fixing compensation and the path of reasoning, as set forth in the report, is clear and unambiguous.
Affirmed.
. Appellee classifies this as an attack on the adequacy of the Commission’s Report. Since the question was not raised before the District Court it cannot be considered on appeal. The question is an indistinguishable part of the other exceptions.
. See Morgan v. United States, 356 F. 2d 17 (8th Cir. 1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson Clinic & Hosp., Inc. v. Blue Cross OF South Carolina, 494 F.2d 50 (4th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1964)
- United States v. Twin City Power Co., 248 F.2d 108 (4th Cir. 1957)
- Morgan v. United States, 356 F.2d 17 (8th Cir. 1966)
- United States v. Willis, 141 F.2d 314 (4th Cir. 1944)