Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Miller v. GLACIER DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided July 13, 2007No. 94,999Published

1ConcurrenceLuckert, J.

I agree with the outcome of this case and Justice Rosen’s analysis on all issues except the question of the admissibility of the prices Glacier paid to purchase the two tracts of property in 1995 and 1996. I would find this evidence admissible.

As Justice Rosen notes, “any competent evidence bearing upon market value generally is admissible.” City of Wichita v. Eisenring, 269 Kan. 767, 773, 7 P.3d 1248 (2000). Stated another way, any evidence relevant to market value on the date of the taking is admissible.

We recently discussed the rules relating to relevance in another eminent domain…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. EdgarSupreme Court of Kansas · 2006
  2. City of Mission Hills v. SextonSupreme Court of Kansas · 2007
  3. Love v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1944
  4. State v. RichardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1993
  5. State v. WaltersSupreme Court of Kansas · 2007

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API