Tulsa County Drainage Dist. No. 12 v. Stroud

6 Citing cases

  1. STATE EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. ROBB

    1969 OK 47 (Okla. 1969)   Cited 15 times

    In Chicago, R.I. P. Ry. Co. et al. v. Larwood, supra, the plaintiff brought an action, in "reverse condemnation," to recover compensation for damages to his leasehold estate caused by the street in front of his place of business being torn up and closed during construction of a certain public improvement, and this court held that evidence concerning the plaintiff's income and profits from his business, during the year before construction started and during the construction period, was admissible as bearing upon the depreciation in value of his leasehold estate. Also, see Tulsa County Drainage District No. 12 v. Stroud (1947), 198 Okla. 688, 181 P.2d 1000, wherein, as here, the plaintiff in a condemnation proceeding condemned a part only of a tract of land owned by the defendant and this court held that evidence concerning the defendant's income and profits from a business conducted on the tract of land was admissible as bearing upon the market value of the land before and after the taking. In the Larwood case, this court quoted the above-quoted portion of Section 24 of Article 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution, and said (page 509 of the Pacific report):

  2. Driver v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

    1959 OK 88 (Okla. 1959)   Cited 9 times
    In Driver v. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Okla., 343 P.2d 1079, we held that evidence relative to specific elements which contributed to depreciation in market value of the land condemned was admissible.

    " In Tulsa County Drainage Dist. No. 12 v. Stroud, 198 Okla. 688, 181 P.2d 1000, 1001, it is pointed out that "Witnesses produced by plaintiff testified that the value of the land taken was from $400 to $600, and that the remainder of the tract suffered no damage by reason of the taking. The defendant testified that his tourist camp was a profitable enterprise; that the taking of the 80 foot strip deprived him of any land upon which he could expand his camp as he had originally planned, and that the operation of his camp with the additional units constructed on the 80 foot strip would have been much more profitable than it was at the time of the taking.

  3. Finley v. Board of County Commissioners

    1955 OK 321 (Okla. 1955)   Cited 28 times
    In Finley v. Board of County Commissioners, Okla., 291 P.2d 333, 337, 338, the appealing property owner in a condemnation proceeding similarly complained of the refusal of the trial court to give several requested instructions relating to particular consequential damages resulting from the appropriation of a strip of land and its use in connection with other highway improvements.

    It is the general rule that where part only of a tract of land is condemned, as is the case here, the measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the whole property at the time of condemnation and the fair market value of the property left after the taking. Tulsa County Drainage Dist. No. 12 v. Stroud, 198 Okla. 688, 181 P.2d 1000. Instruction No. 11 given by the court, therefore, correctly states the measure of damages in this case. Such instruction does not, as contended by defendants, deprive them of consequential damages resulting from the construction of the highway improvement, however.

  4. State ex Rel. v. Anderson

    226 P.2d 398 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 6 times

    "It is for the jury to determine from such evidence the amount of damage . . ." To the same effect was our holding in Tulsa Drainage District No. 12 v. Stroud, 198 Okla. 688, 181 P.2d 1000, wherein in the opinion we said: "It is the general rule that where part only of a tract of land is condemned, the measure of damages is the difference between the fair market value of the whole property at the time of condemnation and the present market value of the property left."

  5. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Bass

    698 P.2d 947 (Okla. Civ. App. 1985)   Cited 1 times

    "The ultimate question for the jury to determine in this class of cases is the value of the land actually taken, and if less than the whole tract is taken, how much that portion not taken is diminished in market value in consequence of the taking," said the court in Champlin Refining Co. v. Donnell, 173 Okla. 527, 529, 49 P.2d 208, 211 (1935). Ordinarily evidence will take the form of a before and after taking value of the entire tract, but as the court pointed out in Tulsa County Drainage Dist. No. 12 v. Stroud, 198 Okla. 688, 181 P.2d 1000 (1947), since there are two elements of damage to the owner, a witness may testify specifically as to the value of the tract taken and then as to the damage to the remainder due to the taking. The observations of plaintiff concerning the shortcomings of defendants' expert testimony are to some extent well taken.

  6. Smith v. State ex Rel. Dep't of Highways

    477 P.2d 851 (Okla. Civ. App. 1970)

    See Tulsa County Drainage Dist. No. 12. v. Stroud (1947), 198 Okla. 688, 181 P.2d 1000. Affirmed.