This court has clarified that the highest and best use need not be " ‘the use at the time of taking’ " or even " ‘the zoning at the time of taking[.]’ " State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 178, 637 P.2d 1131, 1138 (1981) (quoting State v. Midkiff, 55 Haw. 190, 193, 516 P.2d 1250, 1253 (1973)). Rather, a condemnee like Victoria Ward is permitted to "advance any reasonable argument for a probable future use" when calculating just compensation for a taking.

This court has clarified that the highest and best use need not be " ‘the use at the time of taking’ " or even " ‘the zoning at the time of taking[.]’ " State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 178, 637 P.2d 1131, 1138 (1981) (quoting State v. Midkiff, 55 Haw. 190, 193, 516 P.2d 1250, 1253 (1973)). Rather, a condemnee like Victoria Ward is permitted to "advance any reasonable argument for a probable future use" when calculating just compensation for a taking.

In short, the reasonable prospect of a favorable rezoning has an effect on the market value of the property and is, therefore, relevant. Colorado, Stark v. Poudre School Dist. R-1 , 192 Colo. 396, 560 P.2d 77, 79 (1977) ; California, Metro. Water Dist. v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc. , 41 Cal.4th 954, 62 Cal.Rptr.3d 623, 161 P.3d 1175, 1181-82 (2007) ; Connecticut, Transp. Plaza Assocs. v. Powers , 203 Conn. 364, 525 A.2d 68, 75 (1987) ; Delaware, Bd. of Ed. v. 13 Acres of Land , 50 Del. 387, 131 A.2d 180, 184 (Sup. Ct. 1957) ; Hawaii, State by Attorney Gen. v. Pioneer Mill Co ., 64 Haw. 168, 637 P.2d 1131, 1138 (1981) ; Idaho, Ada Cnty. Highway Dist. v. Magwire , 104 Idaho 656, 662 P.2d 237, 239 (1983) ; Illinois, Oak Brook Park Dist. v. Oak Brook Dev. Co. , 170 Ill.App.3d 221, 120 Ill.Dec. 448, 524 N.E.2d 213, 219 (1988), appeal denied , 122 Ill.2d 579, 125 Ill.Dec. 222, 530 N.E.2d 250 (table) (1988) ; Maryland, State Roads Comm’n v. Warriner , 211 Md. 480, 128 A.2d 248, 251-52 (1957) ; Missouri, State ex rel. Missouri Highway & Transp. Comm’n v. Sturmfels Farm Ltd. P’ship , 795 S.W.2d 581, 585 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990) ; Nevada, City of Las Vegas v. Bustos , 119 Nev. 360, 75 P.3d 351, 352 (2003) ; New Jersey, Borough of Saddle River v. 66 E. Allendale, LLC , 216 N.J. 115, 77 A.3d 1161, 1175 (2013) ; North Carolina, Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Comm’n , 250 N.C. 378, 109 S.E.2d 219, 231 (1959) ; Rhode Island, Palazzi v. State , 113 R.I. 218, 319 A.2d 658, 662 (1974) ; Tennessee, Shelby Cnty. v. Mid-South Title Co. , 615 S.W.2d 677, 680 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980) ; Washington, State v. Motor Freight

Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not in error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.” Montalvo v. Lapez, 77 Hawai'i 282 , 286, 884 P.2d 345 , 349 (1994) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Pioneer Mill Co., 64 Haw. 168 , 180, 637 P.2d 1131 , 1140 (1981)). B. Evidentiary Rulings

In the ordinary condemnation proceeding, therefore, blight of summons damages, on the monies not deposited and drawn down, are calculated on the difference between the jury's award and the deposit, from the date of summons until the date of payment. SeeState v. Pioneer Mill Co., 64 Haw. 168, 637 P.2d 1131 (1981). On the other hand, as the facts in Midkiff, and in this case show, condemnations under Chapter 516 are handled very differently.

As a general rule, determining the credibility of the witnesses and weight of the evidence are matters within the sound discretion of the tax appeal court. See In re Weinberg, 82 Haw. at 327, 922 P.2d at 381 ("[W]eight given to evidence is within the province of the tax appeal court, which will not generally be disturbed on appeal."); State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 179, 637 P.2d 1131, 1139 (1981) ("Experts' opinions vary and the competence, credibility and weight of their testimony is exclusively in the province of the [trier of fact].") (QuotingTerritory v. Adelmeyer, 45 Haw. 144, 163, 363 P.2d 979, 989 (1961)). The tax appeal court thus acted well within its discretion to credit the City appraiser's tax assessment.

Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.' " (Quoting State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 180, 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981))), reconsideration denied, 77 Haw. 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994) (ellipsis points in original). D. Evidentiary Rulings

See also Montalvo v. Lapez, 77 Haw. 282, 286, 884 P.2d 345, 349, ("Jury instructions . . . must be considered as a whole. Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.") (quoting State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 180, 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981)), reconsideration denied, 77 Haw. 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994). Craft v. Peebles, 78 Haw. 287, 302, 893 P.2d 138, 153 (1995).

See also Montalvo v. Lapez, 77 Haw. 282, 286, 884 P.2d 345, 349, ("Jury instructions . . . must be considered as a whole. Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given.") (quoting State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 180, 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981)), reconsideration denied, 77 Haw. 489, 889 P.2d 66 (1994). 2.

Moreover, a refusal to give an instruction that correctly states the law is not error if another expressing a substantially similar principle is given." State v. Pioneer Mill Co., Ltd., 64 Haw. 168, 180, 637 P.2d 1131, 1140 (1981) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The City argues that by failing to instruct the jury on contributory negligence, the court precluded the jury from properly considering incidents occurring after the 1988 City accident, which allegedly aggravated Montalvo's condition.