United States v. 78.40 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in McKean County, State of Pennsylvania, and Laurence J. Hazzard

Third Circuit

United States v. 78.40 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in McKean County, State of Pennsylvania, and Laurence J. Hazzard

384 F.2d 746, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 24, 1967

Docket16474_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 384 F.2d 746 (United States v. 78.40 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in McKean County, State of Pennsylvania, and Laurence J. Hazzard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. 78.40 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situate in McKean County, State of Pennsylvania, and Laurence J. Hazzard, 384 F.2d 746, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this condemnation case the Government seeks on appeal to convict the trial judge of error in instructing the jury, as he did, that it might infer from the Government’s failure to call as a valuation witness one of its employees, who had made an initial valuation of the land taken, that his testimony, if produced, would have been detrimental to the Government’s position. It appears, however, that at the conclusion of the charge, in answer to a direct inquiry by the trial judge, counsel for the Government stated that he had no suggestions or corrections as to the charge. Under these circumstances, the Government is precluded from attacking in this court the portion of the trial judge’s charge referred to. Arnold v. Loose, 3 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 959, 963-964. We, therefore, do not *747 reach and do not consider the question which the Government seeks to raise as to the right of a claimant to comment to the jury on the Government’s failure to call as a valuation witness an employee who had made the initial valuation upon which was based the estimate of just compensation for the land taken which is required by 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a(5).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

In this condemnation case the Government seeks on appeal to convict the trial judge of error in instructing the jury, as he did, that it might infer from the Government’s failure to call as a valuation witness one of its employees, who had made an initial valuation of the land taken, that his testimony, if produced, would have been detrimental to the Government’s position. It appears, however, that at the conclusion of the charge, in answer to a direct inquiry by the trial judge, counsel for the Government stated that he had no suggestions or corrections as to the charge. Under these circumstances, the Government is precluded from attacking in this court the portion of the trial judge’s charge referred to. Arnold v. Loose, 3 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 959, 963-964. We, therefore, do not *747 reach and do not consider the question which the Government seeks to raise as to the right of a claimant to comment to the jury on the Government’s failure to call as a valuation witness an employee who had made the initial valuation upon which was based the estimate of just compensation for the land taken which is required by 40 U.S.C.A. § 258a(5).

The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

384 F.2d 746, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 4771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-7840-acres-of-land-more-or-less-situate-in-mckean-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack