Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Deal

7 Citing cases

  1. WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOP. v. ENIS

    993 P.2d 787 (Okla. Civ. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times
    Referring to the landowner's right to non-interfering uses of the easement

    The ARKLA right-of-way was located on the same property as the Western easement. The motion in limine cited Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Deal, 1965 OK 57, 401 P.2d 508, in support of Western's argument that "[a]ny evidence relating to prices paid by other condemners for other easements is not admissible to ascertain the value of the damage to land taken in this case." In response, landowners argued that the case of Coogan v. ARKLA Exploration Co., 1979 OK 6, ¶ 11, 589 P.2d 1061, 1063, limited the exclusionary rule in Deal to "evidence of the price paid for other tracts in condemnation proceedings."

  2. Midship Pipeline Co. v. Tract No. BR-0860.000, 2.331 Acres of Land

    Case Number: 6:18-cv-302-RAW (E.D. Okla. Apr. 29, 2021)

    Going rates tend to reflect non-compensable considerations above the market value of the property acquired, such as avoiding the cost of condemnation or other litigation, and economic pressures to complete construction and place the planned facility or infrastructure in operation . United States. v. Virginia Electric Co., 365 U.S. 624, 630, 81 S. Ct. 784, 789 (1961); United States v. 8.41 Acres of Land in Orange Cty., 680 F.2d 388, 392 (5th Cir. 1982); Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Co. v. 3.47 Acres of Land, No. CIV 02-10 BB/LFG July 31, 2003 (D. N.M. 2003); Kamo Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Nichols, 2017 OK CIV APP 60, 406 P.3d 36; Okla. Tpk. Auth. v. Deal, 1965 OK 57, ¶¶ 16-17, 401 P.2d 508, 511; Cities Service Gas Company v. Beck, 1975 OK CIV APP 16, 534 P.2d 27, 28; Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, 2016. Timber/Crops

  3. Kamo Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Nichols

    406 P.3d 36 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Durell further noted that such transactions are, in essence, compromise settlements of a potential lawsuit, and generally inadmissible under Oklahoma law.¶ 13 The Supreme Court re-affirmed the rule of Durell in Oklahoma Tpk. Auth. v. Deal, 1965 OK 57, ¶ 17, 401 P.2d 508. Deal quotes 18 Am.Jur., Eminent Domain, Sec. 352, page 996, for the principle that "[t]he price paid for neighboring land when taken by eminent domain, either as a result of an award, a verdict, or a settlement, is inadmissible, as it is not a sale in open market [sic] and does not show market value." (Emphasis added).

  4. Chesapeake Operating Inc. v. Kast Trust Farms

    352 P.3d 1231 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013)   Cited 1 times
    In Chesapeake Operating, Inc. v. Kast Trust Farms, 2015 OK CIV APP 5, 352 P.3d 1231, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals approved a jury instruction on temporary and permanent injuries, but it rejected a jury instruction on damages for stigma associated with the drilling operations because it was not listed as a factor in Davis.

    See Oklahoma Transp. Auth. v. George Abdo Trust, 2006 OK CIV APP 11, 130 P.3d 751. “[T]he value of land or interest in realty at a particular time may as a general rule be proved by evidence of voluntary sales of similar property in the vicinity made at or about the same time.” Coogan v. Arkla Expl. Co., 1979 OK 6, ¶ 12, 589 P.2d 1061, 1063. If a landowner can show that a sale of land was voluntary, it does not per se taint the sale simply because the party who purchased the land had the power of condemnation. At most, it simply raises a rebuttable presumption with the burden on the landowner to show a voluntary sale. However, “the amount of money [another landowner] had received from the [condemner] for settling his claim against the [condemner], was incompetent and inadmissible.” Oklahoma Turnpike Auth. v. Deal, 1965 OK 57, ¶ 19, 401 P.2d 508, 512 ¶ 23 The admission of this evidence is a matter left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and unless that discretion is abused, the court's ruling will not be disturbed.

  5. Miller v. Corporation Commission

    1981 OK 55 (Okla. 1981)   Cited 13 times

    It is said to be affected by special circumstances which do not exist in open market transactions."Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Deal, Okla., 401 P.2d 508, 511 [1965]. By its very nature, the sealed-bid process is incompatible with an open market sale.

  6. Coogan v. Arkla Exploration Co.

    589 P.2d 1061 (Okla. 1979)   Cited 6 times

    The case under consideration here is easily distinguishable from the instance where condemnation price is inadmissible. In Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Deal, Okla., 401 P.2d 508 (1965), this Court stated that where a trial is had in a condemnation proceeding to determine the measure of damages, evidence of the price paid for other tracts in condemnation proceedings is incompetent. In explanation of that statement, the Court said:

  7. CITIES SERVICE GAS COMPANY v. BECK

    534 P.2d 27 (Okla. Civ. App. 1975)   Cited 1 times

    In our opinion, the trial court's ruling was correct. In Oklahoma Turnpike Authority v. Deal, 401 P.2d 508 (Okla. 1965), the court syllabus states: "1. Where a trial is had in a condemnation proceeding to determine the measure of damages, evidence of the prices paid for other tracts in condemnation proceedings is incompetent.