Department of Transportation v. Perry

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Department of Transportation v. Perry

327 S.E.2d 832, 173 Ga. App. 715, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1671

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 7, 1985

Docket69871

StatusPublished

This text of 327 S.E.2d 832 (Department of Transportation v. Perry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Department of Transportation v. Perry, 327 S.E.2d 832, 173 Ga. App. 715, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1671 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Banke, Chief Judge.

This appeal follows a jury verdict in favor of the condemnee in an action by the Department of Transportation to condemn 1.128 acres of land, including mineral interests. The department contends that certain testimony regarding the value of marble deposits estimated to be contained in the property should not have been admitted because the witnesses offering the testimony did not reduce the estimated value of the deposits by the cost of extracting the mineral. It is also contended that the testimony in question was hypothetical and speculative.

In its brief, the appellant concedes that “the principal issue at the trial was not the value of the land taken, but rather the value of ... a deposit of marble underneath the condemned tract.” Two geologists testified for the appellees that the marble was marketable, being suitable for use “as dimension stone as well as aggregate, agricultural lime, chips, chicken scratch, flux stone, carpet filler, and low-grade whiting.” The appellant further concedes that such facts were relevant to show the potential and probable use to which the land [716]*716could be put. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Godwin, 109 Ga. App. 740 (137 SE2d 351) (1964). Held:

Decided March 7, 1985. Henry C. Tharpe, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. J. Carey Hill, for appellees.

Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the jury heard testimony concerning excavation and other cost factors which, according to the witnesses in question, influenced their opinions regarding the value of the property. “After a witness has given [his] basis for opinion evidence as to value, it is up to the jury to determine its weight.” D.O.T. v. Worley, 150 Ga. App. 768, 772 (258 SE2d 595) (1979). In this case we find the testimony to be neither hypothetical nor speculative.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Banke, Chief Judge.

This appeal follows a jury verdict in favor of the condemnee in an action by the Department of Transportation to condemn 1.128 acres of land, including mineral interests. The department contends that certain testimony regarding the value of marble deposits estimated to be contained in the property should not have been admitted because the witnesses offering the testimony did not reduce the estimated value of the deposits by the cost of extracting the mineral. It is also contended that the testimony in question was hypothetical and speculative.

In its brief, the appellant concedes that “the principal issue at the trial was not the value of the land taken, but rather the value of ... a deposit of marble underneath the condemned tract.” Two geologists testified for the appellees that the marble was marketable, being suitable for use “as dimension stone as well as aggregate, agricultural lime, chips, chicken scratch, flux stone, carpet filler, and low-grade whiting.” The appellant further concedes that such facts were relevant to show the potential and probable use to which the land [716]*716could be put. See State Hwy. Dept. v. Godwin, 109 Ga. App. 740 (137 SE2d 351) (1964). Held:

Decided March 7, 1985. Henry C. Tharpe, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. J. Carey Hill, for appellees.

Contrary to appellant’s assertion, the jury heard testimony concerning excavation and other cost factors which, according to the witnesses in question, influenced their opinions regarding the value of the property. “After a witness has given [his] basis for opinion evidence as to value, it is up to the jury to determine its weight.” D.O.T. v. Worley, 150 Ga. App. 768, 772 (258 SE2d 595) (1979). In this case we find the testimony to be neither hypothetical nor speculative.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Benham, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

327 S.E.2d 832, 173 Ga. App. 715, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 1671, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-transportation-v-perry-gactapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack