Summary
holding that differing features of a comparable sale of real property were not a sufficient basis to reject expert testimony in an eminent domain proceeding, instead the differences went to the amount of weight to be afforded by the jury
Summary of this case from Florida D.O.T. v. Armadillo PartnersOpinion
No. 74-289.
February 21, 1975.
Appeal from Circuit Court for Indian River County; D.C. Smith, Judge.
J.T. Frankenberger, Vero Beach, for appellant.
Sidney A. Stubbs, Jr., of Jones, Paine Foster, West Palm Beach, and Charles A. Sullivan, Vero Beach, for appellees.
As to appellant's point I, we affirm upon authority of Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank Trust Co., 116 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1959); Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank Trust Co., 108 So.2d 74 (Fla.App. 1st 1958); Board of Commissioners of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank Trust Co., 100 So.2d 67 (Fla.App. 1st 1958); Swift and Co. v. Housing Authority of Plant City, 106 So.2d 616 (Fla.App. 2d 1958); see also 4, Nichols on Eminent Domain, Market Value-Quality of Res §§ 12-322 (1974). Further, the necessary proof requirements contained in the foregoing authorities find adequate support in the record.
As to appellant's point II, we affirm upon authority of Rochelle v. State Rd. Dept., 196 So.2d 477 (Fla.App. 2d 1967). The differing features of the comparable sale were not sufficient to cause the rejection of it, but rather such differences could be considered by the jury in determining the weight to be given the testimony.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, MAGER and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.