Masheter v. Kebe

ia.

There aré two. points of dispute for OUr resolution in *150this appeal. As asserted by appellant, the first is as follows:

“In an approriation proceeding an expert witness may not testify to a highest and best use that is not allowable under the existing zoning regulations.”

In support of this declared proposition of law, appellant cites the decisions of this court in Masheter v. Wood (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 175, and Bd. of County Commrs. v. Thormyer (1959), 169 Ohio St. 291, together with several appellate decisions.

Such reliance is misconceived. In Masheter v. Wood, supra, we decided a single…