MORRIS FINKEL AND LENA FINKEL, HIS WIFE; DAWWA POZIN; NATHAN POZIN, JEAN POZIN AND LENA FINKEL, AS TRUSTEES, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE ROAD DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
This case involves an appeal from an eminent domain proceeding where the appellants argued the trial court erred in its handling of appraiser testimony and jury instructions regarding setoffs for damages. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the trial court's actions were inconsistent with established Florida law on both issues.
The court held that the trial court erred on both issues. The first issue was resolved by prior precedent in Anderson v. State Road Department, and the second issue was resolved by prior precedent in Daniels v. State Road Department.
“Was it error for the trial court not to strike the testimony of an appraiser for the State Road Department when it appeared that his testimony and appraisal was based upon an erroneous concept of the Florida law, and (2) Was it error to instruct the jury that a set off of damages to the remainder could be made against the enhancement in value, where there was no competent testimony as to any benefits accruing to the remainder ?”
This quote outlines the two primary issues raised by the appellants on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellants are landowners in an eminent domain proceeding initiated by the State Road Department. They appealed the final judgment, asserting two …
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 Enhancement In Value cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal from a final judgment m an eminent domain proceedings, it is apparent from a review of the record and briefs that the primary questions involved are, (1) Was it error for the trial court not to strike the testimony of an appraiser for the State Road Department when it appeared that his testimony and appraisal was based upon an erroneous concept of the Florida law, and (2) Was it error to instruct the jury that a set off of damages to the remainder could be made against the enhancement in value, where there was no competent testimony as to any benefits accruing to the remainder ?
We have reviewed the records and briefs and conclude and so hold, that the first question, supra, has been answered by this Court adversely to appellee in this Court’s decision in Anderson v. State Road Department, 204 So.2d 899 (Fla.App., 1967).
As to question number 2, supra, we conclude that this question has also been answered adversely to the appellee in Daniels v. State Road Department, 170 So.2d 846 (Fla.1964).
The other questions raised must necessarily be answered again in a retrial of this cause, and therefore receive no further treatment here.
Because of the errors committed, as pointed out, supra, and under authority of Anderson and Daniels, supra, the judgment appealed from is reversed, set aside and said cause remanded for a new trial not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.
Reversed and remanded.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting- Chief Judge, and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Limmiatis v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 253 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…es and not special to the appellant’s parcel. Where it appears that the testimony of the con-demnor’s appraiser is based upon an erroneous concept of law, it is error for the trial court not to strike such testimony. Finkel v. State Road Department, 216 So. 2d 463 (Fla.App. 1st, 1968). Upon the authority of Daniels and Finkel, supra, the judgment appealed herein is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial not inconsistent with the views herein expressed. Reversed and remanded. SPECTOR, C. J., and…
-
Levit v. State, 248 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)…affirmance is adhered to and the petition for rehearing is denied. CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concurs. SPECTOR, J., dissents. . Daniels v. State Road Department (Fla.1964) 170 So. 2d 846, 853,' 854. . Finkel v. State Road Department (Fla.App.1968) 216 So. 2d 463. . State Road Department v. Cowart (Fla.App.1970) 236 So. 2d 469.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Daniels v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 170 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1964)
- Anderson v. State Rd. Dep't, 204 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)