Spitzer v. Department of Highways

West Virginia Court of Claims

Spitzer v. Department of Highways

12 Ct. Cl. 314

CourtWest Virginia Court of Claims

DecidedFebruary 20, 1979

DocketNo. CC-78-164

StatusPublished

This text of 12 Ct. Cl. 314 (Spitzer v. Department of Highways) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering West Virginia Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spitzer v. Department of Highways, 12 Ct. Cl. 314 (W. Va. Super. Ct. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

RULEY, JUDGE:

On September 29, 1977, the respondent repaired, and in part, relocated Hollybush Road, a secondary road in Lincoln County, at a point where it adjoins or passes through property owned by the claimant. As a result of damage to the front yard of the claimant’s property, which the respondent neglected to repair, the claimant was obliged to incur expense in the sum of $100.00. In addition, the respondent madg a cut approximately half way through, and thereby killed, a black walnut tree upon the claimant’s property. It was neither shown nor claimed by the respondent that it was necessary to cut the tree. The claimant testified that the tree was approximately two and one-half feet in diameter and that its value was $200.00. For the [315]*315foregoing reasons, it appears that an award to the claimant in the sum of $300.00 should be made.

Award of $300.00.

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

RULEY, JUDGE:

On September 29, 1977, the respondent repaired, and in part, relocated Hollybush Road, a secondary road in Lincoln County, at a point where it adjoins or passes through property owned by the claimant. As a result of damage to the front yard of the claimant’s property, which the respondent neglected to repair, the claimant was obliged to incur expense in the sum of $100.00. In addition, the respondent madg a cut approximately half way through, and thereby killed, a black walnut tree upon the claimant’s property. It was neither shown nor claimed by the respondent that it was necessary to cut the tree. The claimant testified that the tree was approximately two and one-half feet in diameter and that its value was $200.00. For the [315]*315foregoing reasons, it appears that an award to the claimant in the sum of $300.00 should be made.

Award of $300.00.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Ct. Cl. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spitzer-v-department-of-highways-wvctcl-1979.