Kenton County Water District No. 1 v. Rogers

3 Citing cases

  1. Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Baldwin

    497 S.W.2d 937 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973)

    We have previously held that the method of appeal provided by the statute is exclusive and will be strictly construed. In Kenton Co. Water District No. 1 v. Rogers, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 891 (1968), we held that this act outlines the exclusive steps for an appeal and CR 72.01 has no applicability. In Commonwealth v. Stamper, Ky., 424 S.W.2d 821 (1967), we held that the judgment of the county court was ineffective until it was signed upon the order book by the presiding judge and that no appeal could be taken prior to the judge's signing the order book.

  2. Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Dycus

    454 S.W.2d 343 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970)

    Considering the evidence in the case in its totality it is evident to us that there was a sharp conflict in the evidence with regard to the enhancement and to the after value of appellee's farm. Consequently it was for the jury to decide, under the conflicting expert testimony, the before value as well as the after value of appellee's farm and thereby arrive at the amount of compensation that was due appellee. Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Coleman, Ky., 451 S.W.2d 636, (rendered January 27, 1970); Commonwealth, Department of Highways v. Hendricks, Ky., 400 S.W.2d 676 and cf. Kenton County Water District No. 1 v. Rogers, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 891. The question that arises and now confronts us is whether the testimony of the experts that was introduced in behalf of the appellee was destroyed by the subsequent event, (i. e., appellee's sale of 3.3 acres for $60,000.00 which definitely established a substantial enhancement of the after value of appellee's farm by the construction of the parkway) which was contrary in fact to expressed opinions of appellee's experts concerning the extent of the enhancement of appellee's farm by its being left with a valuable off-ramp location.

  3. Commonwealth, Dept. of Highways v. Coleman

    451 S.W.2d 636 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 1 times

    We stated in Com., Dept. of Highways v. Hendricks, Ky., 400 S.W.2d 676 (1966), in which it was claimed, as here, that the value of the property had been enhanced, that "* * * the jury was not required to believe that the building of the interchange automatically converted appellees' farmland to valuable commercial property." Cf. Kenton County Water District No. 1 v. Rogers, Ky., 433 S.W.2d 891 (1968). It is apparent that all valuation witnesses "* * * understood the standards of value, and * * * possessed * * the ability to make a reasonable inference."