EDNA SPROULL WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
JACKSONVILLE ELECTRIC AUTHORITY, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE, 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.
In this condemnation case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the exclusion of comparative sales evidence from distant counties to establish severance damages to property near electric transmission lines, finding that such property is not sufficiently unique to justify such remote comparables.
The court affirmed the lower court's exclusion of the comparative sales testimony, holding that transmission line easements leaving fee land on each side are not sufficiently unique to permit evidence of comparable situations from counties 100-200 miles away.
[1] Evidence of comparable sales is admissible to prove severance damages to remaining property in a condemnation action.
[2] The admissibility of comparable sales located at a distance from the condemned property depends on the unique nature of the taking.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Transmission lines built on easements such as petitioner [appellee] seeks to condemn herein leaving a fee, leaving fee land on each side are not so unique as to allow the proffered testimony as to damages to the remainder of land * * * based on value of land located in counties approximately 100 and 200 miles, respectively, from Duval County”
The lower court's reasoning for excluding the comparative sales evidence, adopted by the appellate court
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJacksonville Electric Authority condemned easements on Edna Sproull Williams' property for the construction of electric transmission lines. The condem…
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 Severance Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a final judgment in condemnation vesting in appellee easements to realty belonging to appellant, and awarding compensation to the latter therefor. The purpose of this taking was the erection of the electric transmission lines by appellee.
The focal issue on appeal is the admissibility of appellant’s testimony relating to severance damages to her remaining property. This testimony consisted of describing sales of realty (adjacent to transmission lines) in Volusia and Orange Counties in order to demonstrate a probable decrease in the value of appellant’s property remaining after the taking. She urges that no similar sales in Duval County were found; and that the rule of law allowing consideration of comparable situations located some distance away therefore is applicable to authorize the admission of the foregoing testimony.
We agree with the lower court’s exclusion of the proffer, and we quote with approval his explanatory ruling thereon:
“Transmission lines built on easements such as petitioner [appellee] seeks to condemn herein leaving a fee, leaving fee land on each side are not so unique as to allow the proffered testimony as to damages to the remainder of land * * * based on value of land located in counties approximately 100 and 200 miles, respectively, from Duval County; therefore, the Rochelle vs. State Road Department case found in 196 So.2d 477 [Fla.App.] would not apply because that case turned on the uniqueness of the interchange being sought to be built along the turnpike.”
It is clear that the unique nature of a turnpike interchange in Lake County, Florida, does not find its counterpart by analogy in realty adjoining or in the vicinity of an electric power transmission line in heav*653ily populated and industrialized Duval County.
Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Division OF Administration v. Samter, 393 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…s of comparable property may be employed as evidence only when “the land so sold were similar in locality and character to the land in question.” 27 Am.Jur.2d Eminent Domain, § 429, at 333 (1966). Accord, Williams v. Jacksonville Electric Authority, 250 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); 29A C.J.S. Eminent Domain, § 273(10) (1965); 1 Orgel, Valuation under Eminent Domain, § 138 (2d ed. 1953); see generally, Annot., Admissibility on issue of value of real property of evidence of sale price of other real property,…
Authorities Cited
- Rochelle v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 196 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)