Riddle v. State Highway Commission

In my opinion this case has not been correctly decided and I must respectfully dissent from paragraphs 6 and 7 of’ the syllabus and corresponding portions of the opinion.

In my opinion the expert testimony of the plaintiffs should have been stricken since it was improper to prove damages to the land remaining. At most, that testimony established consequential injury to plaintiffs’ property not compensable in a condemnation proceeding. Likewise, instruction No. 10 constituted reversible error for reasons hereafter stated.

The effect of the majority opinion is that although the principal elements…