Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Martin

4 Citing cases

  1. Big Rivers Elec. Corp. v. Barnes

    147 S.W.3d 753 (Ky. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 5 times
    In Big Rivers, as in Risen, the objected-to statement in closing argument referenced evidence that the trial court had specifically excluded.

    On appeal, Big Rivers contends the intentional injection of inadmissible evidence into the trial by the expert witness, and by the closing argument of the attorney, was so prejudicial that it could not be cured by an admonition, but required a mistrial. Clearly the testimony of the expert witness and the closing argument comment of the attorney, concerning the half million dollar offer to purchase were improper. Turner, 497 S.W.2d 57; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Martin, Ky., 392 S.W.2d 64 (1965). The question then becomes whether an admonition would suffice or should a mistrial have been declared.

  2. Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Butler

    438 S.W.2d 797 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 2 times

    Neither was an engineer, and a highway department engineer testified that there would be no drainage problem. Evidence as to water damage by one not qualified to "know or accurately estimate whether such damage will occur," is inadmissible, Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Martin, Ky., 392 S.W.2d 64 (1965); Cf. Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Johns, Ky., 421 S.W.2d 845 (1967). The trial court should have excluded this evidence and granted the department's motion to require the witnesses to refigure the after value.

  3. Flynn v. Commonwealth, Department of Highways

    428 S.W.2d 24 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 9 times

    The final contention is that the court erroneously sustained the Commonwealth's objection to testimony relating to an offer to purchase a commercial site for a service station. We have consistently held that offers to purchase are not admissible. Brock v. Harlan County, 297 Ky. 113, 179 S.W.2d 202; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Raleigh, Ky., 375 S.W.2d 384; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Martin, Ky., 392 S.W.2d 64; Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Rogers, Ky., 399 S.W.2d 706. The judgment is reversed, with directions to grant appellants a new trial.

  4. Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Johns

    421 S.W.2d 845 (Ky. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 2 times

    This motion was overruled. While a witness must be properly qualified to testify concerning water damage (Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Martin, Ky., 392 S.W.2d 64) it was not shown that the landowner ascribed any specific monetary damage to the possibility of his remaining land being flooded. The court properly overruled the motion.