Legal Opinion
Masheter v. Hoffman
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 13, 1973No. 70-538PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoRRigax, J.
Appellants propose but one proposition. of law for this court to consider:
“In condemnation proceedings * * * evidence of sales prices of other comparable real property is admissible on direct examination of one’s own real estate expert as substantive proof of the value of the property under condemnation, where the conditions with respect to the other lands and the sales thereof are similar to those involved in the property under condemnation.”
Appellee does not dispute that contention, but argues that appellants failed to meet their burden of proof, by a *216preponderance of the evidence, that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- County of Los Angeles v. FausCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Sowers v. SchaefferOhio Supreme Court · 1951
- Redfield v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa · 1959
- East Pennsylvania Railroad v. HiesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1861
- Walnut Street Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. BernsteinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Pokorny v. Local No. 310, International Hod Carriers Building & Common Laborers UnionOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Pokorny v. Local 310Ohio Court of Appeals · 1973
- Grote v. J.S. Mayer & Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
- Masheter v. WoodOhio Supreme Court · 1973
- City of Dublin v. Pewamo Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.