“We often look to federal decisions for guidance when our rules are similar in wording.”
How later courts described this case
- “We often look to federal decisions for guidance when our rules are similar in wording.”
- “It was incumbent upon DOH to file a post-trial motion for new trial in order for this Court to assess the prejudicial impact of the . . . jury instructions. To do otherwise would make the general waiver under Rule 59(f) meaningless.”
- “A party’s failure to file a post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure precludes this Court from reviewing an insufficiency of the evidence claim.”
- failure to file motion under Rule 59 for new trial precludes appeal of alleged trial errors
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Ketchum,
concurring:
I am writing to .point out to lawyers handling eminent domain cases that there is an exception to the rule that property is valued as of the- date of taking. When there is a decrease in the value of the condemned property prior to- the date of taking which is caused by the public improvement project, the decreases, in some instances, may be disregarded in determining just compensation.
In Huntington Urban Renewal Authority v. Commercial Adjunct Co., 161 W.Va. 360 , 242 S.E.2d 562 (1978) we held:
Any decrease, not of a general character, in the fair market value of real property prior to the date of valuation, caused by the public improvement for which such property is acquired, or by the likelihood that the property will be acquired for such improvement, other than that due to physical deterioration within the reasonable control of the owner, would be disregarded in any determination of the just compensation to be awarded the property owner for the property.