H. D. McCondichie Properties v. Georgia Dep't of Transp.

The trial court properly excluded evidence that the DOT originally hired an expert the appellant late subpoenaed, since the issue of who originally hired the expert was irrelevant to the issue of just and adequate compensation for the appellant's condemned lant.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Georgia Department of Transportation “DOT” initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire 0.613 acres of land owned by H.D. McCondichie Properties “McCondichie” for a highway construction project. Following a jury trial on just and adequate compensation, McCondichie was awarded $60,000. McCondichie appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in 1 granting the DOT’s motion in limine to exclude evidence as to whether it had hired an expert witness, 2 refusing to allow testimony regarding the source of funding for the proposed highway construction project, and 3 denying his motion for a directed verdict on the issue of the effect of environmental contamination on the value of the property. We discern no error and affirm. The record reveals that in September 2004, the DOT initiated condemnation proceedings to acquire McCondichie’s property. At trial, the DOT indicated that it would not call Allen Strickland, one of its proposed expert witnesses, to testify. McCondichie, however, subpoenaed Strickland to testify. Thereafter, the DOT moved in limine to prevent McCondichie from eliciting any testimony from Strickland indicating that he had previously been hired by the DOT as an expert, and the trial court granted the motion.

The DOT called a project engineer to testify about the physical features of the property being taken and the proposed highway construction project that was to take place there. On cross-examination, McCondichie attempted to initiate a line of questioning regarding the federal government’s involvement in the highway construction project. The DOT objected, and outside of the jury’s presence, argued that McCondichie should not be allowed to ask questions regarding the source of funding for the highway construction project. The trial court sustained the objection.

H. D. McCondichie Properties v. Georgia Dep't of Transp.

The trial court properly excluded evidence that the DOT originally hired an expert the appellant late subpoenaed, since the issue of who originally hired the expert was irrelevant to the issue of just and adequate compensation for the appellant's condemned lant.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report