State v. Montgomery

11 Citing cases

  1. State ex Rel. State Highway Comm. v. Goodson

    365 Mo. 260 (Mo. 1955)   Cited 17 times
    In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Goodson, 365 Mo. 260, 281 S.W.2d 858, 861, and State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Huddleston, Mo.App. 52 S.W.2d 33, judgments in condemnation cases were reversed for the giving of instructions containing language similar to (a).

    James Glenn and Arthur M. O'Keefe for respondents. (1) The trial court did not err in refusing to submit to the jury appellant's Instruction B. State ex rel. Chariton River Drain. Dist. v. Montgomery, 275 S.W.2d 283; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Farmer's Estate, 68 S.W.2d 721. (2) The trial court did not err in giving respondents' Instruction D-4 even though it may contain an abstract proposition of law.

  2. State v. Kendrick

    383 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. 1964)   Cited 30 times
    In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Kendrick, 383 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. 1964), the condemnation was of 11 acres, part of a total of 56 acres owned by the defendant.

    We have appellate jurisdiction because the record affirmatively shows that the amount in dispute is more than $15,000 in excess of the $10,500 or $11,000 to which the commission's evidence indicates that the landowner is entitled. Constitution, Art. V, § 3, V.A.M.S., State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage District v. Montgomery, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 283. Prior to these highway condemnation proceedings and in the year 1953 the City of St. Louis, desiring to acquire land to be used as a part of Lambert-St. Louis Municipal Airport, brought proceedings to condemn 45 acres of Olive M. Gutweiler's 56-acre tract, — the north 45 acres abutting on and lying nearest Natural Bridge Road. This 45-acre tract, however, had not been taken and appropriated by the city prior to the time of the taking of the 11-acre tract.

  3. Public Water Supply Dist. v. Alex Bascom Co.

    370 S.W.2d 281 (Mo. 1963)   Cited 15 times
    In Bascom there was no change in development of the lots since they were practically in their original condition in the area of the water storage site.

    An appellate court will not ordinarily disturb a judgment for damages based on conflicting evidence in a condemnation proceeding where the amount awarded is supported by substantial evidence and is within the limits of the proof. State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage District v. Montgomery, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 283, 287 [5]; City of St. Louis v. Pandjiris Weldment Co., Mo., 270 S.W.2d 17, 20 [5]; Union Electric Company of Missouri v. Miller, Mo.App., 354 S.W.2d 341, 344 [6]. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's appeal for failure to comply with S.Ct. Rule 83.05(a), (2), and (c), V.A.M.R., in that "the appellant's statement of facts is argumentative, incomplete and unfair."

  4. City of St. Louis v. Vasquez

    341 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. 1961)   Cited 58 times
    In City of St. Louis v. Vasquez, Mo. 341 S.W.2d 839, the City of St. Louis had condemned certain property to enlarge Lambert Air Field owned by St. Louis. The date of taking was Feb. 21, 1957.

    The record affirmatively shows that the judgment of the trial court is more than $7,500 in excess of an amount to which the city contended the landowner is entitled. Constitution, Art. V, § 3, V.A.M.S. State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage District v. Montgomery, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 283. Appellant contends that the court erred in giving Instructions 1 and 2; in refusing Instruction A; in its allowance of interest; in the admission of evidence; in its actions with respect to certain statements and arguments of counsel before the jury, and that the verdict is excessive.

  5. Board of Ed., Bowling Green Sch. v. Harness

    338 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. 1960)   Cited 1 times

    It is not necessary to detail the evidence or again enumerate and contrast the various estimates of value, the evidence of the parties was in direct conflict and in these circumstances this court may not interfere with the jury's primary function of awarding just compensation. Empire District Electric Co. v. Johnston, supra; State ex rel. Chariton River Dr. Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 283, 287; School District of Clayton v. Kelsey, 355 Mo. 478, 486, 196 S.W.2d 860, 864. The judgment is affirmed.

  6. State v. Belvidere Development Company

    315 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. 1958)   Cited 17 times

    This court has appellate jurisdiction of the cause. Const. Art. V, § 3, V.A.M.S.; State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 283. This proceeding was instituted by plaintiff to acquire property in the construction of a four-lane, limited-access highway, now designated as "State Highway Route U.S. 71, Jackson County," from Route 150 northwardly to Hickman Mills.

  7. State ex Rel. State Highway Comm. v. Clevenger

    365 Mo. 970 (Mo. 1956)   Cited 39 times
    In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Clevenger, 365 Mo. 970, 291 S.W.2d 57, involving condemnation proceedings to acquire lands for relocation of a highway as a limited access highway, the Supreme Court approved the reasoning expressed in State, By and Through State Highway Commission v. Burk, supra; that there could be no taking of an easement of access to the new roadway, because no prior right of access existed.

    (1) The trial court properly ruled on the admission and exclusion of evidence. Prairie Pipe Line Co. v. Shipp, 305 Mo. 663, 267 S.W. 647; Missouri Pub. Serv. Co. v. Hunt, 274 S.W.2d 27; State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage Dist. v. Montgomery, 275 S.W.2d 283; Southern Missouri A.R. Co. v. Woodard, 193 Mo. 656, 92 S.W. 470; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. Goodson, 281 S.W.2d 858; Krone v. Snapout Forms Co., 360 Mo. 821, 230 S.W.2d 865. (2) The trial court was correct in admitting evidence on value of limitation of access. Gorman v. Chicago, B. Q.R. Co., 255 Mo. 483, 164 S.W. 509; State ex rel. State Highway Comm. v. James, 356 Mo. 1161, 205 S.W.2d 534; Rude v. St. Louis, 93 Mo. 408, 6 S.W. 257; Wilson v. Kansas City, 162 S.W.2d 802; Rourke v. Holmes St. Ry. Co., 221 Mo. 46, 119 S.W. 1094; Art. IV, Sec. 29, Missouri Constitution of 1945.

  8. State v. Rauscher Chevrolet Company

    291 S.W.2d 89 (Mo. 1956)   Cited 29 times
    In State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Rauscher Chevrolet Co., supra, 291 S.W.2d 89, this Court stated at page 92: "It is the established rule in this state, and generally, that the price an owner paid for property being condemned is admissible as some evidence of its value at the time of appropriation.

    Therefore, this court has appellate jurisdiction. Mo.Const. 1945, Art. V, § 3, V.A.M.S.; State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 283, 284 [1]. The instant condemnation petition, filed September 29, 1950, named one Dierl as the defendant-owner of the property involved.

  9. Haley v. Horwitz

    286 S.W.2d 796 (Mo. 1956)   Cited 8 times

    Const. Art. V, § 3, V.A.M.S. See and compare State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Schade, Mo. Sup., 265 S.W.2d 383; and contrast State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo.Sup., 275 S.W.2d 283. No other ground for this court's appellate jurisdiction appears from the record.

  10. State ex Rel. State H. v. Grissom

    439 S.W.2d 13 (Mo. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 11 times

    07 S.W.2d 85 (where the opinion evidence of condemnee showed damages of $8,300 to $12,000, that of condemnor showed damages of $180 to $500, and the judgment for $4,000 was affirmed), and Union Electric Company v. Simpson, Mo.App., 371 S.W.2d 673 (where the opinion evidence of condemnees showed damages of $5,000 to $7,500, that of condemnor was not recorded in the opinion, and the judgment for $2,000 was affirmed), which said cases are characterized in defendants' brief as "contrary to [their] contention" and "possibly persuasive" but nevertheless "not [to] be followed" because they are (so counsel assert) "in error" and, being pronouncements of a sister court of appeals, are "not binding" on us. State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Eilers, Mo., 406 S.W.2d 567; State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Hamel, Mo., 404 S.W.2d 736; State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Koberna, Mo., 396 S.W.2d 654; Public Water Supply Dist. No. 2 of Jackson County v. Alex Bascom Co., Mo., 370 S.W.2d 281; State ex rel. Chariton River Drainage Dist. v. Montgomery, Mo., 275 S.W.2d 283; State ex rel. State Highway Com'n. v. Hart, Mo. App., 417 S.W.2d 193; Missouri Public Service Co. v. Hunt, Mo.App., 274 S.W.2d 27; Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Johnston, 241 Mo.App. 759, 268 S.W.2d 78. Instant defendants' position is patently irreconcilable with other judicial holdings not cited in the briefs.