City of Enid v. Moyers
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1DissentCorn, J.
I will not concur in the majority opinion for the reason it takes away from the trial court any discretion it had as to the competency of evidence that the owner of the land, six months to one year prior to the taking of the same, listed it to real estate dealers at a certain price; and also for the further reason it wholly disregards the well established rule of law that courts may take judicial notice of general increase or decrease in the value of property, as it embraces matters of public concern known by all well informed persons. It is not questioned by anyone but what there was a…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- City of Tulsa v. HorwitzSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Wichita Falls & N. W. Ry. Co. v. HollomanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1911
- Dehmel v. SmithWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
- Strait v. WilkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1914
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.