Legal Opinion
City of Tucson v. Estate of DeConcini
Court of Appeals of Arizona
Decided September 24, 1987No. 2 CA-CV 87-0105PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FERNANDEZ, Judge.
The City of Tucson appeals from the judgment and denial of its motion for new trial in an eminent domain case, contending the award of compensation was excessive because the trial court erred in admitting and considering evidence of future profits from contemplated improvements. We find no error and affirm.
Appellees, the Estate of Evo DeConcini, Ora DeConcini and Peter Gallo as trustee, are the owners of a parcel of property located on the northwest corner of Stone Avenue and Speedway Boulevard in Tucson. In August 1985 the city filed a complaint to condemn a large…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Housing Authority of Newark v. Norfolk Realty Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1976
- Tandet v. Urban Redevelopment CommissionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Port of NY Authority v. HowellNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
- FLOOD CONTROL DIST. OF MARICOPA CTY. v. HingCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
- Moschetti v. City of TucsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1969
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Miller v. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Arizona, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- City of Tucson, Corp. v. Cheryl A. Tanno & the EstateCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2018
- State Ex Rel. Miller v. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Arizona, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
- State Ex Rel. Miller v. Gannett Outdoor Co. of Arizona, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1990