# Ark. State Highway Commission v. Fox

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · April 9, 1959 · 230 Ark. 287

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655351

## Case

- **Full name:** Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Fox
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 9, 1959
- **Citations:** 230 Ark. 287; 322 S.W.2d 81
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by MoFaddin
- **Judges:** Johnson, Mofaddin, McFaddin
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655351

## Opinion text

Ed. F. MoFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting).
The majority opinion, in holding that there would have to be a remittitur, says that the record contains no evidence on behalf of the landowners, C. E. Fox and Katherine Fox, for any amount greater than $10,250.00 and that there would have to be a remittitur by them of $5,750.00. As I read the record, the witness, John Q. Adams, definitely testified that the total amount of the damage was $20,350.00; and this was based on a “before and after figure as to the fair market value”.
On Transcript 126 the following appears on re-direct examination:
“Q. You have stated the length of time which you have been personally acquainted with this property and its use. Notwithstanding the questions and answers as to specific items, is it still your statement that the difference in the market value of the property involved before and after the taking is $20,350.00?
A. It is.”
Now, the question and answer above copied clearly show that the witness, John Q. Adams, based his figures on the “market value of the property involved before and after the taking”.
"With the foregoing evidence in the record, I submit that the Court should not require a remittitur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9655351. Public record. Not legal advice.