In re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Land of O'Donnell

Ohio Supreme Court

In re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Land of O'Donnell

252 N.E.2d 643, 20 Ohio St. 2d 43, 49 Ohio Op. 2d 242, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 301

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided November 12, 1969·No. No. 69-88·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants were entitled to have the trial court instruct the jury in accordance with the principle enunciated in paragraph three of the syllabus of Sowers v. Schaeffer (1951), 155 Ohio St. 454, which provides:

“The rule of valuation in a land appropriation proceeding is not what the property is worth for any particular use but what it is worth generally for any and all uses for which it might be suitable, including the most valuable uses to which it can reasonably and practically be adapted.”

Inasmuch as it is clear from the record in this case that the trial court refused to so instruct the jury over objection by counsel for appellants, we determine that there is error prejudicial to appellants and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. See, also, Cincinnati & Springfield Ry. Co. v. Longworth (1876), 30 Ohio St. 108; Bd. of County Commrs. v. Thormyer (1959), 169 Ohio St. 291.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan, and Corrigan, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellants were entitled to have the trial court instruct the jury in accordance with the principle enunciated in paragraph three of the syllabus of Sowers v. Schaeffer (1951), 155 Ohio St. 454, which provides:

“The rule of valuation in a land appropriation proceeding is not what the property is worth for any particular use but what it is worth generally for any and all uses for which it might be suitable, including the most valuable uses to which it can reasonably and practically be adapted.”

Inasmuch as it is clear from the record in this case that the trial court refused to so instruct the jury over objection by counsel for appellants, we determine that there is error prejudicial to appellants and that the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. See, also, Cincinnati & Springfield Ry. Co. v. Longworth (1876), 30 Ohio St. 108; Bd. of County Commrs. v. Thormyer (1959), 169 Ohio St. 291.

Judgment reversed.

Taft, C. J., Matthias, O’Neill, Schneider, Herbert, Duncan, and Corrigan, JJ., concur.

In re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Land of O'Donnell, 252 N.E.2d 643, 20 Ohio St. 2d 43, 49 Ohio Op. 2d 242, 1969 Ohio LEXIS 301 (Ohio 1969).

Pincite

252 N.E.2d 643 (In re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Land of O'Donnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related