Farr v. State Highway Board
Supreme Court of Vermont
1Opinion of the CourtHulburd, C. J.
At the trial below, the jury awarded the plaintiffs $24,000.00 for land taken in highway condemnation proceedings. The defendant comes here on appeal questioning whether the trial court properly admitted testimony from three expert witnesses' for the plaintiff. They gave valuation testimony concerning the real estate in question. The defendant-appellant claims they were not qualified to do so. The complaint is not that the witnesses were unqualified by virtue of training and experience to testify; rather, the defendant’s objection is that the witnesses’ familiarity with the property itself…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Muskeget Island Club v. Inhabitants of NantucketMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Bliss v. Moore StoughtonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1941
- James Millar Co. v. CommonwealthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Vallejo & Northern Railroad v. Home Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
- Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. BrownIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Green Mountain Marble Co. v. State Highway BoardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1972
- Currier v. LetourneauSupreme Court of Vermont · 1977
- Sharp v. Transportation Bd. of State of Vt.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1982
- City of Santa Fe v. GonzalesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1969
- Lambert v. FullerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1973
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.