United States v. Elizabeth Magyar

273 F.2d 421
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedDecember 21, 1959
Docket25544
StatusPublished

This text of 273 F.2d 421 (United States v. Elizabeth Magyar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second 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. Elizabeth Magyar, 273 F.2d 421 (2d Cir. 1959).

Opinion

273 F.2d 421

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Elizabeth MAGYAR, Appellant,

No. 60, Docket 25544.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Dec. 4, 1959.
Decided Dec. 21, 1959.

John P. Maiocco, Jr., Bridgeport, Conn. (Hugh A. Hoyt, Bridgeport, Conn., on the brief), for appellant.

Hugh Nugent, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Harry W. Hultgren, Jr., U.S. Atty., Dist. of Conn., Hartford, Conn., and W. Paul Flynn, Asst. U.S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., on the brief), for appellee.

Before CLARK, WATERMAN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The United States upon taking defendant's realty in eminent domain proceedings made deposits totaling $33,780 as its estimated value of the land. After trial to a jury that body first brought in a verdict for $23,700. This the trial judge refused to accept, and he returned the jurors for further consideration; they then brought in a verdict for $30,050, which he did accept. Obvioulsy this is far from a generous award, but we do not think it so small on the facts disclosed in the record as to show error as a matter of law. The jury appears to have accepted the lowest expert estimate as the value of the property taken in fee and then to have reduced somewhat the estimates of easement and severance damages involving adjoining parcels. The jurors viewed the premises and evidently did not credit the prognostication that this land so long used only for farming and pasturage purposes would soon develop as more valuable residential property. We cannot say that they are necessarily wrong.

Affirmed.

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

Related

United States v. Magyar
273 F.2d 421 (Second Circuit, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
273 F.2d 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-elizabeth-magyar-ca2-1959.