CARVEL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE
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 trial court did not err in admitting the appraisal testimony, as the Peebles rule did not require its exclusion.
Appellant, Carvel Corporation, appealed a jury verdict for damages in an eminent domain proceeding, arguing the verdict was inadequate due to erroneou…
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, Carvel Corporation, seeks reversal of a judgment for damages based upon a jury verdict in an eminent domain proceeding. Appellant contends the jury’s damages verdict was inadequate because of erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court. Appellant urges several grounds for reversal, however only one ground merits discussion.
Appellant attacks appellee’s appraisal testimony as being based on an erroneous premise and contends that it should have been excluded under authority of Peebles v. Canal Authority, 254 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Appellee’s appraiser testified that the current zoning of the property was agricultural. The appraiser also stated that the highest and best use of the property was a commercial — residential combination and that he based his opinion of the property value on that commercial — residential use. In Peebles the appraiser based his conclusion of the value on the premise that the remainder property after the taking would be waterfront. The uncontroverted evidence in that case, however, indicated that the closest water would be 200 feet from the edge of the remainder property. The Peebles court held it to be error not to strike that opinion.
The rule of Peebles simply does not require exclusion of appellee’s appraisal testimony in the instant case. Appellant’s other contentions are likewise without merit. No reversible error having been demonstrated, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ„ and GEIGER, DWIGHT L., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sutton v. Superintendent Clayton Strickland, Jr., 485 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…e affirm the trial court’s actions. See Morris v. Wainwright, 409 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). We do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek redress under the Inmate Grievance Procedure. Ingram v. Lt. Forte, County Jail Administration, 473 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). JOANOS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Peebles v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 254 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)