Mauney v. Department of Transportation

313 S.E.2d 782, 169 Ga. App. 563, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1637
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 25, 1984
Docket67587
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 313 S.E.2d 782 (Mauney v. Department of Transportation) 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
Mauney v. Department of Transportation, 313 S.E.2d 782, 169 Ga. App. 563, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1637 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Banke, Judge.

This is an appeal by two of the named condemnees in a proceeding to condemn certain property used by a dry-cleaning establishment for parking purposes. Held:

1. The trial court did not err in striking testimony by the person in charge of keeping the business’s books, comparing the total sales for certain months in 1982 with the sales for the same months in 1981. This testimony was offered to show that the loss of parking had resulted in a diminution in profits; however, without evidence of the business’s expenses for those months, the jury had no way of calculating the amount of the alleged diminution. “In order to establish lost profits, the jury must be provided with information or data sufficient to enable them to estimate the amount of the loss with reasonable certainty. (Cit.) Generally speaking, this means that they must be provided with figures establishing the business’s projected revenue as well as its projected expenses. (Cits.)” DOT v. Vest, 160 Ga. App. 368, 369 (1) (287 SE2d 85) (1981). We note that the court’s ruling could not have harmed the appellants in any event, for the jury was never informed that the motion to strike had been granted, nor were they otherwise instructed to disregard the testimony.

2. The remaining enumerations of error are deemed abandoned pursuant to Rule 15 (c)(2) (Code Ann. § 24-3615) of this court, as they are not supported by argument or citation of authority.

*564 Decided January 25, 1984. Joe K. Telford, for appellants. J. Matthew Dwyer, Jr., Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Robert S. Stubbs II, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Marion O. Gordon, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Roland F. Matson, Thomas C. Dempsey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Shulman, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.

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

Related

Department of Transportation v. Baxley
389 S.E.2d 519 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1989)
Department of Transportation v. Martin
331 S.E.2d 45 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
313 S.E.2d 782, 169 Ga. App. 563, 1984 Ga. App. LEXIS 1637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauney-v-department-of-transportation-gactapp-1984.