Hurkman v. State
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBeilfuss, J.
Is there credible evidence to sustain the verdict ?
The plaintiffs contend the evidence of comparable sales, offered by the defendant through its experts, will sustain the jury’s after-taking value.
The defendant’s position is that evidence of comparable sales was not offered either to support the appraisals of its experts or as direct evidence of value but for the limited purpose of adding weight to the experts’ opinion.
While some jurisdictions receive evidence of comparable sales for the limited purposes of qualification of the expert witness and giving weight to his opinion, the majority,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Washburn v. Milwaukee & Lake Winnebago RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1884
- Bear v. Kenosha CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- Stolze v. Manitowoc Terminal Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- American States Security Co. v. Milwaukee Northern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- Blick v. Ozaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Weeden v. City of BeloitWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
- Milwaukee Rescue Mission, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1991
- Genge v. City of BarabooWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Kamrowski v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Geise v. American Transmission Co.Court of Appeals of Wisconsin · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.