“[B]efore the owner of the condemned land could show adaptability to a use he must show a market 49 [ ] existed or was reasonably likely to exist in the near future.” (citing Cameron Dev. Co., 145 F.2d 209)
How later courts described this case
- “[B]efore the owner of the condemned land could show adaptability to a use he must show a market 49 [ ] existed or was reasonably likely to exist in the near future.” (citing Cameron Dev. Co., 145 F.2d 209)
- “[B]efore the owner of the condemned land could show adaptability to a use he must show a market 49 [*49] existed or was reasonably likely to exist in the near future.” (citing Cameron Dev. Co., 145 F.2d 209 )
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WALLER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
In view of the constitutional command that just compensation shall be made for private property taken for public use, and *99 in view of the absence of any recent and comparable sales from which the fair market value of the lands in question could readily be ascertained, I feel that the defendants should have been allowed a wider range in presenting evidence that tended to show factors reasonably pertinent to the ascertainment of fair value.
I believe that the requirements of the strict rules of evidence should be relaxed whenever a rigid adherence to them would .convert the inquiry into a highly technical proceeding, dependent for its outcome upon the skill and knowledge of such rules by the landowner’s counsel, rather than upon a just ascertainment of the measure of the landowner’s compensation.
I would prefer to see the case re-tried in the light of these views.