# Hoffman v. Commonwealth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 24, 1966 · 422 Pa. 144

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706874

## Case

- **Full name:** Hoffman v. Commonwealth, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 24, 1966
- **Citations:** 422 Pa. 144; 221 A.2d 315; 1966 Pa. LEXIS 537
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Cohen
- **Judges:** Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 18 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/9706874

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
Section 705 of the Code, Act of June 22, 1964, P. L. 84, §705, does not permit the expert to testify as to “reproduction cost” alone. The Code only permits an expert to testify as to reproduction cost less depreciation or obsolescence. It is for that reason that I would not permit the condemnee to testify as to “reproduction cost.” Nor would I permit the condemnee to testify as to reproduction cost less depreciation or obsolescence. While an owner may testify to market value, neither the Code nor logic qualifies him to testify as to the highly technical requirements necessary to establish any worthwhile data on depreciation or obsolescence. Thus, Price v. Commonwealth, 205 Pa. Superior Ct. 142 , 208 A. 2d 23 (1965), in no way supports the majority’s position that the owner may testify to the “reproduction cost” of property taken.
The legislature, when it adopted the Code, had an opportunity to permit such testimony by a condemnee— it did not so do and I would not permit it by judicial fiat.
Mr. Justice Jones joins in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9706874. Public record. Not legal advice.