Legal Opinion
Warren v. Waterville Urban Renewal Authority
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided November 21, 1967PublishedCited by 35 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DUFRESNE, Justice.
This is an eminent domain case. By reason of a change of venue under 14 M.R.S.A. § 508, an Androscoggin County jury awarded the plaintiff sixty thousand ($60,000) dollars as just compensation for the taking by the Waterville Urban Renewal Authority, defendant, of plaintiff’s real estate situated on Temple Court, so-called, in the City of Waterville. Constitution of Maine, Art. I, § 21. Dissatisfied with the jury award, Mrs. Warren appeals on grounds which may be consolidated as follows: (1) the trial court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion to strike the value opinion of…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Ogden v. SaundersSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
- Newton Girl Scout Council, Inc. v. Massachusetts Turnpike AuthorityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1956
- Isenhour v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- National Bank of Commerce v. City of New BedfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Gulick v. Board of Environmental ProtectionSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1982
- Irish v. GimbelSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1997
- Denver Urban Renewal Authority v. Berglund-Cherne Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1977
- Capital Improvement Board of Managers v. Public Service CommissionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1978
- Fournier v. FournierSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.