ROBERT TUTTLE AND LORETTA TUTTLE, HIS WIFE, D/B/A TRIPLE S. BEACHWEAR, PETITIONERS,
v.
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, RESPONDENT
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 a condemnor must pay the lowest estimate of severance damage given by any expert witness, but this rule does not apply to business damages.
The First District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding jury latitude in eminent domain compensation awards when only one expert's testimony…
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 Business Damages cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Chief Justice.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Tuttle v. Division 'of Administration, State of Florida Department of Transportation, 327 So. 2d 841, Opinion filed February 5, 1976. The First District, upon denial of petition for rehearing, certified that its decision in Tuttle, supra, passed upon a question of great public interest. We have jurisdiction.1
In Tuttle, the First District reaffirmed its previous decision in City of Jacksonville v. Yerkes, 282 So. 2d 645 (Fla.App. 1st, 1973), holding that in an eminent domain proceeding:
“. . . [T]he condemnor must pay the lowest estimate of severance damage given by any expert witness even if the condemnor offers no such testimony of its own . . . .” Tuttle, supra, at 842.
The District Court nevertheless qualified the Yerkes rule by holding it inapplicable to business damages:
“. . . [A] business damage verdict supported by a defensible view of the evidence may be sustained in an amount less than the owner’s demand when the condemnor offers no opinion testimony fixing the base of a range of estimates.”
The issue concerns the latitude an eminent domain jury has in awarding compensation when the only evidence on an element of compensation is the testimony of one expert witness. We have today answered that question in Behm v. Division of Administration, State of Florida Department of Transportation, 336 So. 2d 579 (Fla.1976).
We approve the result reached by the First District in the instant case, but to the extent the decision below reaffirms Yerkes, supra, it is disapproved.
It is so ordered.
ROBERTS, BOYD and ENGLAND, JJ., concur. ADKINS, J., dissents.
. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla.Const.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mulkey v. Division of Administration, 448 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…this condemnation case, was not bound to accept the expert’s valuation. See Behrn v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation, 336 So. 2d 579 (Fla.1976); Tuttle v. Division of Administration, State Department of Transportation, 336 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1976). Indeed, the jury was authorized to return a verdict on the claim of severance damages in an amount less than the valuation offered by the condemnees’ appraiser, even without rebutting testimony. See Division of Administration, State Depa…
-
City OF Tallahassee v. Boyd, 616 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…her than land. Rather, it is merely the recognition that the owner, at a valuation trial, still has the burden of proving that the criteria set forth in section 73.071(3)(b) have been met. Tuttle v. Dep’t of Transp., 327 So. 2d 841 (1st DCA), aff'd, 336 So. 2d 583 (Fla.1976). That portion of Tessler on which the City here, and the concurrence in Weggies Banana Boat, rely, appears to mean that when access is taken, the constitutional “full compensation” requirement is met by the payment of the loss in value to…
Authorities Cited
- Behm v. Division OF Administration, 336 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1976)
- Green v. State, 282 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Tuttle v. Division OF Administration, 327 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)