# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0179%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1949 - **Citation:** 338 U.S. 1 ## Text of Ameriea.”’ The: appraisers. also creported that the'y recognized that at the time of the return of the property to the Comp any there wonld be damage for loss of patrons. , bnt that a iajerity of the Board had found that the dani. Sage could not be appraised at the time their report Wits made, The Cove rhinext and the Company hoth took ap peals” trou thie wwardot the up praise gs." : * \ 4 _ The trial tor Ahe ascertainiie nt of the ‘* just baat Wen . ton” due the © ‘ompany lie ‘wan On Mare ‘h.4, 1946, before a jury, and ended Mareh 19, 1946. The Company contended that ‘the Government, while ostensibly taking only the. right to nsesand oceupy’ “the tamhdry, Mad ine legal “Utrect taken all of flie | maspet "s physical assets and its business as well, sine hidlingAts trade rentes and custome Psy. and was obligated g to pay the full market value of what was taken, estimated ty hie approximates $1,000,000, The. ¢ ‘ompany also con-— /Aended tha? if the rental Wr wee v alue of its taundry Was to he tised eas ure conipe nsition, evidence: of ‘the value of ibe 7 Hea SHE eustoner was adutissiple as an ele- Yoent ot aly ge A ht ee ae J. \/* ; af ~ Fhe Qovermment assertatl that ust. compensation ‘Was “to he ihe’ asured bythe 1 iarket rental ov. use_yalue of the There isa ‘fundamental didtarcnce hctunteis the e ‘taking of a part of a-ledase and the-taking of theewhole lease, That difference is that the lessée must return to the leasehold’ at the eud of the Governneit’s use or at least the responsibility for, the period of the vase: whieh is’ not taken rests upon the lessee. * 6 * Because‘of that continu. ing obligation.in all takings of teniporary occ npancy of leaseholds, the vaige of the rights of the lessees which are faken may he: affected by ered nee of the cost of te mporars remocate [ Ttalies suppliet. | be ' dn the. instant east, had The Governinent taken the one porney, use. of the building alone, and hfid the: Company \ beeen required tore move its “mitchine vy and equipivent, and to store.them and then. return them to the building al the end of the Gover nment’ s term, the necessary cost of so do. ¢ ° ° vecupaney of w building ine” Ite prove d‘tnot as indepetident (Page “i83). This, hecause-the Court * 1@- oe o : ” : i * eek: eee, ary oe ; ce a i ing, as Hearing,on the question of the-market value of the.” aise anil-oc c apane take uy oud, ne donbt, di: ive been proved; anh vonsidered, es "Whe re the rig ight to te mporar d dec apy ‘property: “is the inte rest taken, Tust. coniypengation is the \ vadue- on the. market of the use ‘and. gcenpaney (U° nited States % Pe tty” Motos Ci O., SUpIa, page 37. 77), but ev idéene ‘eof bax of profits, damage to good: will, an@other such. consequeritial losses “must. be excluded in dete ‘rinining market value, Td, pages | ‘377-378. > 2 ; Sees Coa mine car a: ae . cert eee 2 Be ‘ : 3 eke ‘ The compensation contentplated bP ihe F ith ‘Amendinen: ‘is the market rental valu nf the temporary | use and occu pancy taken. United States ©. Ge me ral Motors OF Pry SU pra, pages 382-383 af 323 ELS. Ti. effect, “the Governmewt takes “a lease and jis obligated to pay as, rent the full market. re ‘utal value of the property oceapie d. Tn: addition, thie own: er, as. the constructive. lessor, Is ‘entitled to additional com. pe sation for ny destruction, dam ige and depre ciation in Value of the property oceasioned hy its temporary use, Ida pages 383-384. The Government, as. the. epustructive lessee, obligates itself to retin the property in as good. condition as when “received, “ordinary wear and teavand | damage-hy the elements alone. hereeg dca v to the \ calue of the C ompany ‘s ‘trade routes: anc customers, — or going business. ws cece Pan ‘ * F _ mae | | . 3 Ip he Ccngene's second ** Propasition of Law’? is’as fol-_ — | Pelvis. ; here the trial’ count rejects or rec e1Ves evidence fe ‘which adversely affects a substantial and inatetial right of a par tv litigant, the « cause should be rev ersed.and remanded.’’ mf nder ‘this’ pripos ition, the Company states that wit- _- esses were yermitte “d -to testify w fo did not see r know ° 4 $7 the property as if was-in 1942, and knew nething of _ fe e value atvany thme; that ihe Permiuda used by the Govern- ment’s witness’ Weber formed he. wionie ite basis for de- termining just “coun pe lsation: that there was colipetent evidence of fair rental value, int ‘that it was niallified hy the court's instructions. eh Poa ey The Piatti Court’s ¢harge. is nét a model of concise- ° : : vm) oes os, . nx ms a . . a ° ness or accuracy. It contains statements which “standing - alone are subject to critic ists, such ass. ‘*With, these con- siderations. in miid, how are Wwe goine toe find the fair rental value for thie, use of ttiis propel ry? There does not: seem 16 hie’: anyone qnalified to hiekp ussrei wh that figure. We must 3 sabe it; however, from such, evidence aS - we, \l- can obtain.’ Taking the clarge as a whole, however, we | think it ade quately: apprised the jury of the; applicable law aid the conside ‘rations pon whieh a verdict could lawfully ' be based, and did’ hot nullify: the pertinent ¢ evidence ad- “mitted. Moreover, “after listyning for two weeks to coni- Hiting estimates and opinions as to fair rental value and chikery attributable to -the Government’s use, the jury could. hardiy have had any illusions as to the’ issues of faet | which were presented by the evidence, So far as the rect”. ord shows, no attempt Was made by the, Government, dur. _- M¢the trial, to minimize the usefulpess or capacity of the, laundry or to show that it was not complete ‘ly equipped ‘and 1 profitable oper ration when: taken over by the Govern- ment. “Tt insisted, however, that the Conipany “was not en- ve to hi ave Joss of trade routes and custowners, expenses f litigation, and other consequential di mages, considered in ade fe rminine just rinse citi ition for the nse t ant OCCUDANCY of the |i aundry.- °«). The inarket rental value of the a and the damage. aud deteriovatiy i res suiting trom its ise v the: Gov ernment . . ° . : bs a ° . . 4+. 2 iy . ° . . A % ° 1] . . . ¢ ‘as tocdaniages to and detérioration of the. plant and ma- * m f ‘ployed by the Goveriment te ‘estimate rental value and. Their credibility, the. weight of ther testituony,’ and ‘the 5 i : : ‘ “ * ” had to be estimated. There was no actual market for the tempowmiry tse and-oceupatiey of lanndries.. The men em- — daniage’ toe machinery and equipment were competent and qualified to do that work, Their testimony was adtnissible, sotmdness of their options were for the jury to ey valuate, /Seenson ye Mutual Life Tus, Co, of New York, 8-Cir., 87 fied that he kiows the property and its Viglue, lie may be called upon to state such value, The means “and extant of his information, and the refore the worth of his opinion, | may be developed at length On LV Oss-€ sdmination, °? Mon- tana Railway 'o. v. Warren, UF US. B48, 354. Whether an- eEXperk witnes Mepeaifid to testi’ is priharily a “question for the trial judee, whose determinaffa-can be upset only for-an abuse of discretion, Lore vid’ ited State ye. Se 141 Pid 9st, O83, ‘uid cases cited. The fact ‘that mi ny of iPGsecmine Mts experts on valtic or on damage to equip- ment and machinery had not seen the Jaundry in 1942 did not disqualify them Lo testify to their vstimites, of its value at that time. They had heard -the condition of the plant and machinery fully deserjbed, aud assumed that it was. in either gbod or first-class conitic hon dat the time the € overn mett took over, « The ate oe of Law No, TD? ts: | The conduct of a ase bhi conde mination under the fed- eral statute shiall be eoverned hy tlie law's of the ‘state: in Whiiv h the condemned prope rty is ‘loeated.’ “ey - The contention one is that loss toa Inisiness occasioned by a taking of property under the power of eminent domain is compensable i Nebraska. What pustitites property and what ts Just-compensation i wher the de th Ame neinent is liota cplbe st Lert of Neliru- kit. law, a cok Leake ral law, Niate- ‘of Nebraska yf witegd Stal ¢a, & cf 1 F ey HG, SGT SGS. ‘ é 7 a5 2d 441, 445, and cases cited, ‘After a Withess has testi- . 4 - “~e — 4 716.03 The Cc ampany rete ys alse to the refusal. of. the court to permit ‘the introduc fion,-in ret buttak of evidence proffered * to show that the estimates BT Government Withesses as to the amounts. reqnived ig restore ‘the faundry to. its former condition were too low. Thre testimony re jected: was a pay { cof the € ‘omnpaliy ’s (iain. (ase. The order of proof on atrial iss large Iv within the dfeeretion of the trial court. Phila. dT phia & Prenton Railroad Coe v. Stem py son, 14 Peters (39 -ULS.) 448, 462-463; Wills v. Rusxell, 100 U.S? 621, 626; 3. Ane dai, Wrial $115, 116) pages 101-104. Phere “was no such abuse of discretion ify rejecting, the: Company’ s si red evide nce as: W ould weirrant a reve Psi il. ; é “The Cc guIpans tee coaecsiten of Law No. LV ’* is as fol- lows :- are She: | fe - **Wien ‘payments for just compinsation be e delayed, ‘additional * compensation measured” by 6% wot. the. total amount ultimately found dae from the date af the, taking aust he as a matter of law added ti the Judgment, with eredit for the amionnits pid with 6% ‘added to date of ulti-. tite judgment.” . . Section 2 oka of Tithe “40 U.S.CLA, provides: xe ix and the said jlidgment shall ine ae ‘is part of the’ dust compen- sation. awarded, interest “at ‘the rate of 6 per centum per qin onthe turount tinally awarded as the v ailne of the property as of the date of ts tking, from sid date o. the. date of payinent: but interest shal net be allowed on se cnuel: Hhereef as shall have been paid into the court’? The Company contends that, sinee the niltitns ate award was $297, , Interest Should run at 6 of, the entire amount” from November 2%, eer the date of payment of the dudtruent, Without ine! tditig, emcee: interest on “sdntis “gi ‘posited as ¢ stint ited colipe nsation, The questyin presented is net free fram doubt. From 4 yeah, stir viewport what the frovertnme ut took, on Novem. B28 te > is -. . *&) pellant, Kimball Laundex Conipany, wilh be submitted tor PORTO hy the Supretie & nwt of the Waited Strtes: Xp pelhint will petition the Suprenie Court of the United States to ‘writ a writ %T ce Miorari, as the appellant in eeod faith heheves thet 3 its. LiPo) oy ty has: heer faker Hy the condémnor without Just conyrensation isaprovided i the. Rifth Amendment to the Co nstitution of the U nigyd States and: the federal statutes ‘enacted j parsuance of ithe sand constititional provision, meee we? This applic: ation fox: ‘stav Is ‘based 4 | Cnt See Trot oR : fa) (bd (ad), 43 Se ane, Deitys Section 3517 of the Jadicial ‘Code found af 28 UL SC. AL 1947 Ciimulative Pocket Part, page 138. a ; av ee . 3. Surety compariy ‘pond is on tile ‘te guarante e all Costs on appeal,. ancl in addition thereto there ts on dey vosit with the Registry of Court in the office of the Clerk of the United States District Court at Omaha, Nebraskay in thigg cause [fell 19] ample eash as the property of the appelkant, im ball Laundry Compan, #6 rote neainst all costs and ekx- penses that might ultimately. be taxed: to the “aid appe ‘II. Ui tye Kimball Laundry Company, in this cause, 4 Said Kimball L anndry Company, 2 corporation, the: sppeitaut Will be the petitioner for said writ! of certior: ari, and this stay is réquested in accordance with Rule l6{e) of * the United, States Cirenit Court of Appeils for the Biehth Cirenit and is requested for a period‘ot thirty days. Dur-- ing said period of time there will be filed with the Clerk of the United States Circnit Court of Appeals for the Biehth Cirenit a certificate from the Clerk of the Supreme our of the United States that the petition for writ of certborart, record, and brief have. been filed. ‘Phe petitioner Tetein - will coryespond. with the Clerk’ of the United States Ch cut (“ort sored vilae e with him etoh chery sett as. may bg ey gs - quired i in pursuance. of Rule Frrej and Ce) in dite time and, “within satd thirty. ‘day period, in order that the Clerk ina hee. fully Compousatedt for. costs as in-such easesanade and: prov ided. oe : at mn $ | “8 “o, his atid gsoninde in eood faith amd not for the plxpose of delay. and is for the purpose of obtaining a reversal of thie opiidon and jad: ote ut of the Unite d-Sta'tes é i] ° — -_ : . F J WG 7 od > ° - % : Coypenit Cort of \uopeals for the Mrehth Crreuit ‘al em ferred te, : April 16, 4s, H.-F. Koch, rh ° hee : 5 Clerk, U.S. Cirenit-Court.af Appeals, > 7° ; Lous, Mo. : Please. consider this wire application foroan additiupal 78 v7 * 4 : pe iy “o8 ; . , fiftecy, days front Aprif-Tieenty. Fourth for ‘staying of. ; : i? sigs 9 * * } Z | *- “Appetit Kant ' ‘ ’ . a fo hecere ns . *s0 teen alass herein appled tor rhe vise ely oss a petition ier wren ot. the further stay liereby. granted shall continue ~ Mandate iw Number Thirteen Four Ninety Pour, Kimball lfol; 21] vé. United States. Wo dave eseotlent canse “Lor request ‘if suah showing HOCESSAP ve. -Feder: il Nt: tate: vrants. é . us Three Months fot Mare " Ie les venth ty fili~ ‘Petition for Writ. Therefore we assinie vour Rule Sixtech Codecs het prechide @ireuit Court from -crantinge the addiptigal fit ‘ : Wire, re WILLIAM . HOTZ, (Endorsed): Filed in U.S. 4 row! ‘Court of: “Agapeat Aes Re io bieoraates : ‘ oi oo ‘ : * $ ; . “(Order Further Staying Pssuanee of Mandatess : an ae baeapeae — Mareh Terug, THe. © 1 : ; ricreoer ' ; Saturday - cance TMs. Ow Consideration sof thie ‘ap phy: ation of “ay ped icinnt tee a farther stay of issuance of the runfidate in this eanse pend ine Ape litie Hitte the Supreme Court of the Lonited St: ite a. ‘It snow here ordered hy this fora writ ef certiorari, died re ith ie . and the . aurt, tlist- the issumnece of the meetiitate SAIN YS here by, further staved Fora pe rrodeol fifteen di ates Prony and after Aprifi v4. 1Od8 cand if within said period there, is filed with’ the Clerk of this’ Court a-gertiicate of the Clérk of the Supre ine Court of ihe United States: that? certiorari, record and brief have heen filed, until the final disy josition of the ense hy the Supeme Cours, ey. Aprita7, 1946: fo Zot. (Clerk’s Certiiceaté.e —. : lanted- States Cir@iit Court of Appents - Eighth Cirewit | -. oe zs. ‘he forevormg tr: AnSeript: Tonsts tines of four volumes con -intus printed srecorel filed ‘on July 2, three volumes; Votume DP consistingeof pages a to ISO, -in . Fees ae : c/~ I EOE. Koch, Clerk of the Uuited States. Ciresit Court: Appeals’ for the Kighth Cyenit, ‘do hereby certify that: ) 1947, composed ot fe. ; S oo 19. . _clusive, Volume Ll -consisting of pages IST to 460, inelus’ ive, wnid- Volume TLb consisting of, pages 461 to, S682 in Chisive, on wWhich-theappdal from the Distriet Court yt the amt 7 ited States for the Distritt of Neliraska was heard in hd Cirerts ft Court of Appeals, afd full, true and complete ©” a “pies af the pl sadlinies. record entrigs and proceedings, ie chiding thé openion, th ad and tiledin-the 1 nited Stites .& in euit Court of Appe “abs, oXece yt the full captions, | titles: ‘and’ ender Sine nts omitted ati pursuance of the rules of ‘the Su. yreme Court of the: United Mates, composed of one vol tine, Volume IV! consisting of page s 1 to 22. -in-a certain base in satd Cireiiit Caurt oi Appeals whertin Kianhall Lasvcanedars Company, a C arpors apoh, Wax appre tnd thie, United States of Ame ‘yiea Was Aq pe Hew; N ASA. or be Tu Testimony’ Whereot, I hereunta subscribe WY hae and atlix the: seal of the U nited: States Cireuit C ourt o > Apperds for the Eighth Cirenit;-at office in the’ © ae eee OPeSt. Louis, Missouri. this Zoth dav of nent, 2 1 G48: | =f Slee es \\ SAP ee oe E KOC 1H. eee (Senhi , er t Clerk ot the United-States tir: : oe - enit Court of. Appeals lor vee ‘ Biehth Cir chit. 4 Sa — \ . rnd nonentl “. (fel 23, Strreme Courter or vie Userin Starrs Orvis AnLowine Caiterionat rr eid October Vi, ibs } . ; The petition he reU te awrit at edrtior ar fo the t rite - States Court-of Appenis for the Mighth Ciretit is eranted. - And it is Turther ordered that the duty certified copy: ot the transe ript of the proceedings, below whieh accoupinied | the petition shall he treater ‘is, themeh Hed In Festetise te sue ch avril, eas | ee ea} ama arte ae - > re - - (MAYS 3 : . 4 a - | ; i ta een is t 5 WAGE apres ee oe. ve Sot ire he Cis bi. Bee —. ¢, Stipreme Court ef the Oniteds States i Fs oa t os \. ade . ‘ ud = — ; i ris M.. 147" OCTOBER .TERT : Spa ~ a . * vg e — / \ . / . \ ’ ° . . 4 2s ‘, . e : : a i . ‘ , . 4 . ; & 3 - % ° . ——— ° — . a 4 ° % iV i \ H \ . -\ \ os x . ‘ 4 ‘1 ‘a \ . . \ . , ° .. z_ 7 e % er / . or : . = 77 j \ ’ ; ‘ ' \ 3 oh ‘> : e , / . ' e . * *. x ‘ . . e * . s ‘ ad wot . t? ss 7 ’ a . ¢ . , . . — La oa . . * > . : a : > . . P 2 2 9 “ . a . . ’ os . i 1 fe “ ; . te e . . { % / 4’ . Z 7 4 > : . t s . a» ~ iN WRX te : Pages : ; Sas etm Ng Le Request for Writ of Certiorari: im _ Opinion Below, G6 Fe 24-856, Vol. IV. Reeord nae 7 Jurisdiction (28 UlLS.C. 6 47a) - tra ~~ Statutes Involved—Eminent Domain ae Summary ‘and Short Statement -of. the Matters. Ine. ~— t ais Rane ene Questions Presented 0-0 7. Saheene 1.° Trial otal. reversible: errors under 28. U. S. C. § 5 891, Jud. Code, § 269 2. Errors by Circuit Court Go ee aa of right to prove route values+for any : fe Ne cat SINT ernie ae alae ces eect 4. .Proot that petitioner foreed to cease all ‘op- erations denied : a inancial statements denied as immaterial , 6. Expert ‘proof of cost to re-establish destroyed routes denied for any purpose. . -) 2.* Government Witness ‘Crowder’s incompetency | AO COMER OE WE, as 8, Government witnesses Weber-Sholes’ formula : ae for ‘rent’? er, aia apg ST EE ane 9. ‘Officers and owners denied their estimate of EE ceca ee eee ’ . 3 10. Composite instructions of court erroneous for : any measure of damage. i in Mininent Domain . 1. Error in refusing rebuttal without culise after trial court created confusion on. measure of fa gh ASL EONS Wel ne Sa é Conclasion PED SEE Sede nn RODS CDE oe Pat LP RN, a Botielt rs UL 83 on 0. S931, 6 . . ee 4 °° it IN DEN -Cotiaed - Paves: ip. % rror in Court's. instruetion. that case not ene "> aS P 1 damages Baa Be ES LAE oad a 2 oN - “cle “+ 13. Error in'eourt’sinstruetion to disregard testi- © anony which* had uot been offered . iermrns 5 ; be = #4. Denial’ ‘of inter¢ st ae 6% allowable: under 40 A A As 9 aoe recy PaMy. Eom AS. Effeet of decision in UL SS y. General aguehy tee 16, ro} rror. of Gireuit Court rejecting ° total p peti tioner’ s Prop. of Law | es am ~*~ 47, C ‘ondemmation statutes disregarde : vl Uy: i Reasons Re live on for the Aulow ance at the W tit. pa. qiestion: of first impression in cor denina-, iy. ston of: public concern . ~ 7 bee 0, & irewit Court -in- conthict with decisions of. Sa “pr eme-Court "3 A We Seer ceair in i atese yieOnaS | SEARO 34 Be Cc ireant G ‘ourt in * edniiiot w ith. decisions ‘of ‘oth- rT circuits i iain aa ebieabe ace . 39 _ Radiés al: “departure froin: proper judioid, pro- ae Sorts se ae ‘ r - : ae \ ‘Ses ar : eS Ec TABL Dy OF. ae ‘00 Adres i in Srinath C County, Teias | v. U. 8. (cc 104 . 12 I. 2d SBe seo i 7 a ee he \ i, \ . \ e » ft n ° 2% 2 w2 8 ae : pt Sh. , PS NS ~ . at oN : a eee eee Pe o ale: - . i ae : ; : ” be t a: \ - - - » ae r he ¢ . Pd ¥ al vr g". Z . ~ A . Py : \ ‘ . v, s ” . . ——— ad -—— _——~.— se oo a +P nner eeeerennade ae — 2 Seca: , Court? s eofiduet of trial. Denial of . ra interest fron. date. of. faking. RRROER IEEE IN LED : 40 41 S. — LO i “Ee a TABLE OF ae | ’ Soslii Mia. Co... Ch of Providi ne e, 2, 262 r. a 668, ‘ 43 S.Ct. 684°. ‘Teadics U oe River P. &. Dist, aM), 144 No “— | 32, 13 N, .W. dl 168 Ligge tt bi: Myers Tobacco Co. v. U. bie (1097), 274 U. > 8.215, 47 8. Ce 58r ee. Mitchell v. U. 8., 267.U.. Ss, 3H, DS. Ct. 2038! _ Monongahela Nav: Bete ee. (1898), 148 U. S. 312, Pee ta mee are SRG ceri nr I eR RRO, cee hart ’ ay Pace. 30 National Brick Co. 3 _ . 8. ¢C. ae , Dist. tas vies aa 1942), 131 Mh. : at icisane ge ceeuen nes cae 39, Fao Phelps vel, S, (1927), 204 L , §. 314, 47 S.Ct. 611 ‘Scaboard ae se “igh Co: v. U.S. (1923 ), 61T.S8 299, 43 a J Sephasinsaa ca iarntAen : Brie . p eaeaae (Ore. ), 6 B. Supp. 109». Is s. ve Land in New York (194; 5), 147 F 2a B51. U.S:'v. Land in Oakland (Cal.), 53 F. ‘Supp. 167. Me La tand a St. Louis (1941), 41 FY Supp. S009. ca "4 U. S. v. Land ir Saunde rs otitis ae ys 57 F. “OM, MRE Cece | es seals ; U.S... General M otors Co. (1985), 3 U;8. ri i B. Ot Ber un inchhace tie Atoka U.S. v. Northern Pace. Ry Co. Bees 1943), ol F. : ee 749° GSE v: Petty Motor Co, (946), 337 U. S. 379, 66S. ones 2, ’ a OG. I ERS, ESE WEE ES BIE Ae = Ee i Se > 74 Dang & Dede « U8. v. Powelson 194%), 313.0, S266, 63 s. Ct. 1047 Ee Re RD st tapuemetssnnenasmeenehsteseneenssssumesansonssstecuiensennynsceiutteaiens ob, Gs . Rogers (1921), 255 U, 163, i S. Ct. ISL 42 A 41. | oe) 41 os STATE TES AX CONSTITE TIONA “ ¢ 38. in s 301 (shud AC ode) 269) c- ¢25 é3”.23 . os — uv U. me 257, 258 58, JoSas Med. Rales Sia 7) WLU C. $174, Tha. Bet, 622, G36 fine ene Hoba further ay nendimne ‘fits, 721, ree Fy 6 fie 2 : . . Fe a I if thi Amendment to. Wedoral ( ‘onatitutinn Constitution ef Nebraska, Art.-1,.$ 2 .... 3 Ss , . x ; ’ ¢ 3 “ « : al \- : . 4F x ‘ . & e ~ . P . . e Py 4 . 7 - > > é - . . + s = : ° ‘ \ ae Oe ; oe . - ° . i . « . . . * J : , ” “4 ¢ . ; . . . . e « . ? c . Ss) tip “¢ a . . . . . . - J . . 5 e : . - - = - J PROVISLONS nye’ 7 lah, é #9! « * , Tih a | eee : _- a 2 ot ‘a ae Pag ~ ration? of Otnaha, N Supreme Court of the United States . . — = ; Je4y . "= OCTOBER TERM, 1947 ——O-4—— , , NO. 830 _ @ 4 ; . nn Qh = ‘ KIMBALL LAUNDRY COMPANY, A Corperation, tat i : Oe , : /’, Sidney, 4 &. oa VS, + UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, — « | Respondent, ee a, : euunentaitealanmenee oo | sieelaiinailae PETITION FOR WHIT OF CERTIORART TO THE UNITED STATES. CURCUTE COURT OF APPEALS Por THE FRGIETH CheriT : eT ra oe To: Tur Hoxorante Tur Scpreme Covrr o: roe Unire: STATES 2 ~ a The petition ef Kimball Laundry Company, a corpe ebraska, tespectfully prays for wa writ of certiorari to the United States Ciréuit Court of Ap- peals, Mighth Cireuit, to review the decision of said equrt 7 _ ~ readered March 11, 1948, affirming a judgme nt af the nit ed States District Court for the: [pis triet of Nebraska’ wiv em in a conde ‘unation proceedings wherein the pe titioner’s “hiundry and dry cleaning plant was totally taker for: Army militars purposes on November 2,.1942. The ease was tried -to a jury 6n Mareh 4,20, 146. On March 22, 146, the Army declared the praperty surphe and aban- doned it to the petitioner. ” Tre governne nt prevailed limiting its liability for 3.6 years me ‘asared by interest on its appraised value of land, building: -and, machinery, plus its estimate of, the costs to replace certain broken parts ofthe building and in: chinery. The petitioner as owner and operator was denigd all of the me asures for - compens sable damage which it offered to prove, as here. inafter set forth. a, ‘THE OPINION Gye Thr ~bpinion dated Mareh 11, 1948, sdught “7 be re- - versed is Kimball Lanndry Company, Ss Corporation, ap-— pellant, ver sus ‘United States of Ame ‘rica, appellee, Civil No, L494, found in Vol. IV of ‘the certified record (166 - F.2d 856, Mag 10, 1948). | ie JURISDICTION - 3 *, 4 The Court has jurisdiction to: review Said decision ander Section 240), Judicial Code (28 U.S S. {. 347a).. ne % ve os THE STATUTES INVOLVED | . “The statutes iuvelved are copied in the appendix (Apr) to the appellant's brief (Apit's. br.) ‘fled an: the “g Cireuit Court and certified with the reeord (Vols. 1, 4. Pl, IV) now hevore this Court (Apk's. br. pp. i-L). They are: . a U, &. ©. 5.897 (Judicial ¢ Code, 5 269). 40 UL S.C. § 257, 258, D58a. Fed. Rules Sta (7). 50 U.S. C. T71; 17la; 621; 632; 636, amending 721; 636a, further ameudsents : 721. 22 (pro- » _ viding methods to pay government upon re- turn of property. to Owner; 1133 710. Kitth Amendment to Federal Constitution “a..* ‘just compensation." : : Constitution of Nebraska, Art. I, §-21 “(Wold Rev, Stat. "Neb. 1943, on- ‘sjust compensation’ , uss S. br., App. 14). ra? cs oa | 2 a aay ‘ See > SUMMARY AND. eet STATEMENT OF | THE MATTER INVOLVED sis EXPLANATION: The. feotnotes where. Jitidicated direct attention ty the points-relied upon for reversal, and where the point is -dixcussed and . argued zs error in appellant's brief im the eiregit court. Iby.stipulation of counse! when “he record on appeal was prepared, the points relied upon-.for réversal were placed. in the appeliant’s brief rather than in the record 4Vol. I, 142): Thas the brief becomes-a part of the r. eord for review to that extent and the limited pages for brief and argument were thus curtailed. However, contraty to the statement in’ the opinron of the cireuit OT es (Vol IV, G6), each point relied upon for reversal was disstissedi ‘and argued in appellant's brief ¢Apit's. br. pp. T4488), followed by “The supporting Propisi v tions of law ¢ Apit's. br.opp. SH Teer, 'Phus the neeefrrty of pategpe eto ap, pelignt’ s brief. fal tnaaest ante ‘1. The petitione r, Kimbalf Laundry Company, is Q Nebraska cortoration. It owned: the fee ‘title, free from liens, to all The real estate. Its ‘personal property was free from Hens or elaims. Tf wae using all dfs freilitios, as a going conecrn, to operate an exveptionally large laundry and dry cleaning establishment iy Onnaha, Ne hraska. ‘Ti was neither the lessee nor lessor of any of the property involved, it had the “temporary: use” . Nevtics of its real or personal property fer ang purpose.) This Was the edndition on Saturday, November. 2h, 142, the lain on Which the once i “conde mination. Was tiled, in the United States Court. The Army (Quartermaster ( ‘orps took angen possession the follgwing day af all pet P tioner’ s plant with all its facilities, machinery, and equip: nent. The petitioner: wes, bw force of the taking, put out. of business.’ The’ Army continued without interruption the ope ration of the plant: with petitione rs 1s0) employ- ees and mani werial staff. Soon Pee of war (100) replaced the - skilled employe es.4° The Army serviced for pay the daimdiry, and dry cle: anit requirements ol+ the soldiers, oifice rs, and all the. Army hospitals, training conte ms, and forts in the Seventh Service Comnuind fro: ul this prope rty (Vol. ‘Tl, pp. 447.8). Lid See oe A 2. The Ariy was admittedly. in the pa ae un- interrupted possession and ‘operation. of the property to the: exelusion of the petitioner herein from the time of -the t taking up to the day that it was declared surplus and abandoned to the petitioner two days after tho jury's \ : : Py (9t0~ pemece-enaeeyeremeanesine, 4. rg tng word picture of plant, Vol. I, O73 285. Previous 5 yenr andit o show values Vol, 1, 282. ° Rejected by fhe Court. . - “rs ; 2. Pa. Vol, IL, pp. 273+ O85. Condemns “right te use and oé¢eupy” p. 2. Alse right ta use and oecopye ‘verdict ov Marcel 20, 1946 CVol T, OF). when said prop erty was: ‘found and declared 16 he surplus as of Marek 235, 1946."" Be ‘ % ° ~ * When taken, the company was doing ain admatl gross business at approximately S400,000.00, fenaneial oii, aes continual ¢ ro mvth i n volute and “expetisively equipped lauhdrios, west of- Chicage.! [ts building taken was inaiit of steel and conerete, five stories, -(32 feet square. ‘Its business was. oby iously that of a serv. ‘ee - Seing. corpor ation for those who required! such SETVICES, It - sold no merchandise ; it manufactured none. its value dlepe nded- upon the services perforfied, Its gross income | sine e it Was. BOTS 44.647 The audits showed what _ part of this Went into the plant, to- dnuild and. develop the assets and traile routes.’ The cost of the machine ry and . — at the time of ‘tlie t laking i in 19A2 Wits FAO. dad Its ‘Ap praised Value. at that time Was $273, S5LS2, ee? the same jen in 14a ee itsat $120,600 0.75. a, ORT IE . "te AUD these € ‘e¥tiivd Pulte Cae re evidence and exhibits were rejected Save sour colin: n ‘showing ve olay that Was of me vainb without the com “plete; wudit. Ji a Serviehig © ompayay 1 the basyiees resuits se" heeessary to.” iy ft ge gg the “hrifand inertar”” Vol. IL, Bx. py, Ym), Ex. on x: 3% p. 20u; Ex. 4. p. 204; Ex. So. p. 206; Ex’ ‘ aa 214-18: Ses. e TI. 2h ‘ ey re Error in. rejections, "AP it's. be. VOLE, PP. ‘2888, where earh exhibit is discussed ‘fulty, with © ourtes. ruling hy pag » preference to record, iY net cre a eopied. In the Propositions. of — these © hibits and testimony ore ‘hretted— and further Hiseussed, Aplt s, bro p. 1%, LI as te Sieoog intsines: Voi : Tl, ppl PME. a Wok Wp 404; Os. Wi 2 ie, - ~ ri 7. CLP AH blilmer’s testimony of Fexhitnts, Mol UL, pp. 180-221 (réjeete. i: ‘cf, foetnote 5 above, : * c e° ; « x. Tok TI, pr. 245-262, Fix. 21- .- 20 Shows: vilue of machinery ant, eqripment in aa eam by same witnesses in 1945 before the trial. ifitey ence in value. S181. M4. This ev idence was.taken from jury by Court's Ent fuet ings. frm di. $987,024.32" : » ee a f. (Rejected) 4. T 0 pernianently establish itself by ths expense of acquiring trade routes, men. had been employed to ¢on- tract with various families anil commercial houses throughout the City of Omatha for laundry ‘and dry clean ing services: These men duiing the previous tive years -built up for: petitioner-15,0928 rerular trade - route ¢cus- ‘tomers, all of which werebeing servicedson November 21.’ ® Vol. UL, Ex. 19, p: 264... ment was denjed consideration by the jary ir the Court's Instructions ef. Aplt's. be. pp. V-2l. instructions requested but note given, -pp. 21-2. Interest on “brick and mortar’ values. -alone were permitted for the jury's consideration. Argued unier Prop. Law 1 and IL, Apit's. br. Sd and Joo - Ht. Apl's, tir, NUL, Aig 44-48, Vol. (1. pp. 273-0: Court ruling Vol. 1. wvZin- . AML reje by Court excent land, building and machinery for interest on invest-negt a Laat . } % ' : . j x : 4 weekly) amount, thus providing the sail total ef S40 516 Sas thes value of the trade routes at thy time ot the tuk ‘ing! --"Phese were ‘totally destreved by the takifig and. Seven months, and eight days, “retention of the’ preperty by the Army for three vears, va. The Certified Pubtie Accountant's reports proved ,, that no sums were carricd*for good will, trade mame, “nade or tising, or anticipated profits, future Dusiness oF est mates of the value OF the business, Only. thre real sinicl personalty. valued as ti angih le ass ts were shown of record, Obviowsty “these dt: ¥ contained no evaluation ‘of the trade routes! ais good will. , ee cn aa 6. By expert testimony based upon experionces ‘and: fuily itemize d was given in exhibit form the cost to build up again in the Cy of Omaha. these tradé routes, givin credit that during the jirst ye he. RTOSS ineome . would be- 100,000, while the total expense for that period would be $251,680.00, which, after figurjug inc ome, would ‘show ae net Ope rating loss at the end of the first year of #1. a1 GS80.00, Kerthe se ond vear the gross ine ome would be S10, 090.08) With an expe use of 3 FAW, 80, or an operat: “ingtloss the second. year of $b 30,366.80. For the ‘third year there would be a grdss haa of $200), O00. 00 with an rr nse. itera of $590, AS3.20,* anc an operating loss of . The witness Judd qualified ae itr expert to give these trade reute v: lies ts a metter of trade-practio® The-conrt denied ali consideration of them either as separdte items’ or as a-part of the value in 1942, .or for any " purpose ‘whatsoever. Vol. Th, P. OOT: Ex.. 14: “pp. 570-1, Vol. TE. pp. 427-9. — predic atedygn rejection argued p. So > Apl's. br. Gi, XIX; Voi. 11, p. 237. paca, of Ex: 11. ; = Z:-Vol.-¥E, p. 200 ©. P. A. —Hillmer *stuting, “These items whie h. were a factor in get ting the increased business liave been charged to ‘expense and have not heen capitatized as good will: ° e « 2 a : . ‘) _ . oe 2 S1SOAS2.20. In the fourth year the company should ne. able, then, to operate. without further Josses and build 4 . % up is net PiCanie,: Bait for Ve hrve vears the. net Cort ta re-establish its Janndry cand dry ‘cleaning routes with ‘the plant and faeilities te he Wiatintained and operated while sO doiug would be $411, 4. 10.00,! vora loss of that sum. ‘ | . The building pisviously valued at $280 48.00 and the ve at $80,000.00) were declared surplus after 3.6 ‘ars.and abandoned to the » petitioner. The power equip- meee and Jnecide ntal” installations were rendered useless fo such an extent that: by orders of the Army or des commanding offieers the plant was “de dlared:a danger, to hunian life because of the unsafe condition of the boilers except for limited use at the time of surrender.” This power ey was valued. at #62,928.08 at the time of the taking. and #: 260,53 at “the time of trial, ora loss: \ - of $27,667.55 on ih items.!® Waee iicaidieisicaishdaaiiaaimdeabasd é . a “16. -Vok. TI, pp. 872, 376, 880. All this, wien wus rejected, ‘with the trade route values, as not within the iss ues, Nevertheless in the opinion’ of the Circuit Court the statement .is, made w holly gras foundation and egn- trar: to the gpeve offered proof at Vol. IV, 8S. “Na doubt the govern: ment’s occupition of the plant disrupted and y we aged the Gompany’s busi- ness, although it could ‘hardly have destroyed the deinand for laundry serv: . lee in the City rig Omaha or disabled the company from ever re-establishing its a " Mhis important part’ oc the opinion erroneously ‘infers that + the eyjdenced cost to rebuild the rautes. and the time it would take, and their value, when destroyed by the taking, were absent from the recorded ‘testimony. If the topics ‘were important enough for the Cirenit ‘Court to coniment upon, it, would seem the, District Court should have permitted: the jury to receive the evidence for consideration in Arriving at its, verdict, : Furthermore, if the Cirenit Court wished ta pass npon the subjects it should - have dene so hased upon the competent evidence offered in the record 9s above indexed. Aplt’s. br., Pe aaron XVI and diseassion, Foy ——— ya vr tons SHEN Fx. 22-A. Ww arming” ‘y command Maior General © tric. /? If. pn. 297 S. This offer ta prove the laundry eanid not be eperated at. ye in its condition invaked this grinl Conrt’s remark, “L ean ga dows. ar” yperete one by myself, and I dont know anything shout a daundry.” Tits remark gras obyionsly highly preiuliéial dence, Errov Viseusst] Apirs s br.. XTFp. 43. 18. Vol. I p27 Prep. of Law TIT... - trary to alt the évi- = een amg ae . 10 ~eedjan 8. The building had struetutil damage thereto from: the ove loading of boilers, “using shaking and from rough " usage necessary-iu the rtish to cet out the vist amount of work. The very finest of expertetestimony of petitioner's Witnesses ‘gave de tailed cost of the re pairs fo the building to place it in the condition that it was at the time of the taking at £53,¢ 70.00," thas reducing the value of the build- ing from £980,248.00 to $2: 26,378 0, exclusive of painting . or repairs to’ plumbing, heating, boilers, power plant, ete. The painting necessary after the 3.6 years Was es- a timated at $17,281.00? by the best of expert painting con- tractors, thus reducing again the valuation of the build- ing by. such Amount. ei this plan for determining the damage. | \ £17,281.00, or $209.097.00: the machinery, and equipment at $129, 699.7 97°) the power equipment and incidental, in- stallations; $35,260.53; the land remaining at the same Val- -ue of $30,000.00 ;. the customers routes, fotally déstroyed liv the taking. These items. aggregate, $395,057. 28, or a dif- - ferene “e. In Ye viluation of the sproperty of $987,624.52 ‘when. taken, and '$395,057.28 when. returned, or a loss to ‘ petitioner. of $592,967.04, -based. upon the undisputed evi- dence on the before and after values. The following ta- bles illustrate the differenee: + . | eh , sas? ‘ a. ‘ ae 19. .Peter-Kiewit. Vol. TEI, p. S31: ex. 53, p. 835, 20. Vol. lil, p. S23, Ex: D2, p. 829 (Steinheimer}. 20.1 Vol IT, pp. 245, 262: Ex. 21-3. p. 200. tates by Instructions, Vol. 1. pp. 157-162. Assigned as error and discussed Aplt’s. br., pp. S82. 83, &7; also p. 32; Prop, of Law 1 and IT. pp. 88, 109. 9. Thys it\ might hive bic argued to the jury from’ #he evidence, had. it been reeel ed, ‘that the building: was" valued, when returued, at & $280,: 48. 00 less, $5 3,970.00 and MW Date of t: kin Nov, 21,1942. Mar. 2, 1946 Date of return. land £30,000,00 ¢ 30,900.00 Building... 28034800 - 205,097.00. * Power equipment 62,928,08° . 35,260.53. Mach., equip. 273,831.39 ~ 420,699.75 Route values BAO,516:85 : none - 3 a ee a le 987 624.3 ye Pe 395,057.28 Petitioner’s Loss on before * and’ after value ood SIZ O07 04 - Fandiet. under ithe court's), > - indtrtetang | np thnepdiippacs eng ee Ad litional em ‘ j nied \. e079 or 10. The kate Wiis Pre by Harry A. Jacoh- herger, his brother 2 i rederic} s iad their ‘higniifon the ieee business, Ik redetick became United States Army: in charge of the gov fapuy A at mp Carson,- Colorado, and qualified: as &n oda ds acobbergers rand ; a-son of Harry, each had? she nt his life ‘in a major in the aundry expert with: unusual experience, A. L. Jaeobberger--offered. to- - : . . ° : | + 2 ; ; —_prove that the laundry had a fair,-rcasonable, market val ne as going concern on November 21, 1942. of $987 ,624.- j Fite _ > i7 » e o- @e 32. This was denied Iiim?? For the purpose of verification and explanation of the composite. value, exclusive of any -yalue for 09d - will or trade name, he offered io prove ani corrohorate the evidence of, othe i witnesses as shown in the table SUpTys page.6. , 1. The’ jary ~ werdic! ' for the use was $2 52,000.00, whichis exclusive or the $45,776.03 returned under the PSS o2. ¥ “oh 1 3 312-3 $1. Vol. Toone 2 Jp P " : Pe % 0 se eet, a Fe aa : ‘ ; ; pe gees 2 . "9 St j % * Ha insthuctions of egeoimrt on ‘the damage i physical prog: por tae rte, suffered by the: petitioner. eS a 4:2 “ aoe e Pa ons . _@ Kagent 12. 3 Assuming: that ‘all othe fe losses’ were included, in- ae ES thie diference - ‘in the. values? of, the property. in. 1942 and To that shold litive heen submitted to the jury, moder proper, re “inStructiqns, that ‘the verdict. might’ readily have resulted ~ the . sum of: $592 1567, 04 rather. ‘thal the verdiat: of | 4g ae 776. 3 whicit Was based an the: ev idence - as fimited a by ‘the trial court, (Val. I, pr: Li 1-162K. AN in a a The court, igh raling’ fo ~ “a a . titioner ‘su ystantial rights. o a “i x 14. If the government’ 's Ww “testify that. the proper measu ¢ of damages was: the Ysolat- eLvieee ed value of thé building, the isolated} alue of. the- lnachin- “ery. and the land, and to figure a ercentage of intbrest Miata : 16 - as $492,567.04, it. iy ‘apparent from the: ev idence 3 tnesses | were permitted to + Rahn ; » thereon. as the government’ Ss ‘theory, and Aeceipted. by the “i "court, then niost cértainly ‘the court should have" permitted thie petitioner’ s off setting evidence. of what it: considered Nthejfair, reasonable *‘rental*? value of the ‘property when. ; a differed by the-petitioner. This was dehjed directly, or nial: tA pike lif ay t the court’ 8 inistructions, ‘he court for all. intents. ite poses: instructed: t] fies. to disregard everything Seis that. the: owpers hi ud stated ate values for lomapaeaey use. °. ae. Rigs . >. i ee : ™~ 2 e s . 5 CY A. io a ol. H. pp. AA! 56 ; eli Apt’ &:: om og pp. 44-6. Ament under Prop. [ a’: Ea “Aplt's. de, pp. RAIL 108 : ies sek * ‘i kayo “i “ Ne 44 ae > : - . : . ss > i 2 ° \ / S$ Ses ‘ os : ¥ o. ,_2 & a hy an . > ww “ tr : :- tae ” then Au 23°. re o+* i he g ~ we ° i = : . oe ‘ = © e Boing e . . and lett for,the jury. only the testimony thie xovernme nie + inexpericneed witnesses (Vol. i: pp. 157- 162). ’ se: Mt the very outset of tie: trial 1 thie court ce Lanewer ‘of the pee Her (¥ol. Il,. 183 3): The court refused: » the applications | p eviously niade’ for ‘a pretrial hearing (error assigned” and argued Spits, br. VW 56), and. failed to enter any order or direction 2$+to the. method or manner. ‘of proof _for the” measure of damages, but th. .dourt stated, ‘ine a seiise We? are plowing new. ground roe Bee ‘ trying to ay rite at a reasonable basis to ‘afford the ee ~ owners just: compensation under .the .C onstitution.” > (Vol. oy 262. 3.) _Consequeiitly, the petitioner, opening the trial, 3 took the position that: the fair, reasonable: marke ot valub “of ihe property ‘at the tinie of taking would be proper ‘for. all purposes in the trial. This the. court denied and’, ee, either refused to hear, or imled out? on instructions to the ‘: fe a 165. Apit'’s. br, Eaapr XIV, 48° discussed. Instructions,- Aplt’s. ‘br., pp.» F 2 . owner) wander advisement:”. Further at the close of the testimogy, Vol. IT, jury evidence Of, the’ lite Ww ‘hen’ taken, for al! purposes, “ag hereinabove clearly set. forth and indexed in. the, a. “hates, supra, ca re rare aoe 2 . Pee | F ; eS eae ot 16, Then the petitioner. sought. to, show thie fair, - * reasonable compensation for the use of the premis 5 lure | ing the period, because the éourt mee a aoe -These ‘ugé”’ sums given. by Harry A, _ Jacobberger,A. ee Jacobberger, . and F red Jacobberger were 600,000, $57O0,- - 0005, and $570, (00 - Teqpdstively. ? none ore induded “es oe ae - 23. A. L. J., Vol. UL, MS-367 : Aftes 50 pages of exam sation to substantiate « OT0000 ax just compensation: for the USP, | including all damages, except to trade routes aid fuviness, the court stid. it would» withhold ruling. ‘Vok LI, 831—"“We will takes your. motion (to strike the testimony of the * o07—"T will instruct the jury with re®renc® to- these items wien the. time — comes.” Later the cofirt’s instructions muiiiified the evidence, Vol. I, 175- 15-26. -Argued, Prop. Law Th. p. 111, Apit’s, br. Vol. 1,’ pp. 172-8. eo - - 5 . ’ a ; : a ~ . te ‘ + _ SPE = eth eresas tee ~ a » ’ ‘ke > se es _ . . © “eRn items of cipensattion except damage te trade. routes, . ° busitiess, and good will. Neverthe ‘lesSthe evidenc Ms was eX ° cluded under ae of tite: court rv ol, I, 3 ap. LT 62) Sa re ee ee es ee . * ore 7 “17! In ‘each instance,’ as shown in Santante’s 23" the “erence h, of®the uree owner-Witnesseés . renonneéd ee their seotenny= So-- completely that,. the SRY. were left with no praéti@l solution’ but to’: find as ‘adiired by- a . oon) " governmefit | witnesses.’ « a er . - ae. ee the witness’s estifnate of $600,000 for the term included damages fof trade route destructign, good will, and loss of busitiess. So under stich erroroys , impression the testimony*was nullified.” Vol. II, 421-443. Error wonton, ; x2 ' @Apit’s. br. XVII, p: 54; arguéd under Prop. Law Il, —~eot either ruled out the. testimony or by specific ref ; ’ "18. “There were three principal government witnesses ; ~ ag R Crowder, who never tiseg, bought, or sold: See Inandry aehinery and, equipiient, nor was he: familiar ’ Harry J., Vol. “LB "421 -3; 44153. The court perm ial: ‘cause _- - J.—inusual qualifications as Army Major in charge of Army. Rape a, laundty at Camp Carson, Colorado,2and ‘Jefferson Barracks, Mo., Vol. LI, feos ‘443-58. His testimony re use compensation, cg ae for.3.6, years, Vol.- oy. TL, 454-5, exciuded “loss of custéiners, routes, TUss. of. business, or good Poy .* will” Volk. II, 458-9.- Ruling of@court on objection was, Vol. II, 460, “I : : will intruct the jnry on these Bric when the proper times come. : Inst, peineale Vol. I, pp. 1572162 and Inst. denied, Vol.I, pp. 172-8. . . Be ths Aplt’s’ br., Error Xx p. 63. Instruction: ‘of court specifically rénoune- ing “the witness Fred J., Vol. 1, 157; renotincing A. L. J.* testimony, Vol: ; I, 156; renouncing Harry J. testimony, Vol. I, 1569 Errors, Afit's. bp., £ XV Ill. p. 56: XIV, p. 48. ‘Briefed and argue? Prop. Law ed IT, 11. If the itemization of what the. owners had in mind to ba their “use” + . compensation tained items. pot~ comperisable as the trial court viewed . them, the specifi items should have bedn ruled out rather than the de- Bee nunc¢intion of the cust finally = after the above cémments: (Vol. I, - 157),."“With these ‘considerations in mited, how ere we going to find. the fair rental value for the use of this property? There does not seem to be 5 ere anyone qualified to help us reach that figure. * * * * Next the court said * .in his instructions, Vol. I,. 159, “Having once arrived at the value. you. .. then can’ ltegin figuring and use a8 -a yardstick an interest rate.” Apilt's. _ oe Errors 1-H, ‘p. 18, and 1-3, F-~19. -Alse | errors oi ‘refusal of instrue- Bhi tions: Aplt’s. br., Error’ TIT, p. 21-5. - 3 4 : B ‘The court, by giving the. instructions IV -b requested by the gavern- ee nt: committed reversible error in a condemnation suit, because the jury ~ Sac ie o en ope G Sate ~ t ‘ : ins ” ? ® . * with, sueh property. or the. plart in 1942 (Vol. IY, yD. 696), was © uecof the } aessistant’s ‘in the offiee 6t the jenn: ; "Engineers. He went about the city to iek up information he ‘re. and there: abgut cost of repairs and replacements. of- such “machiner’y and equipment. He was nd¥.a con- trae tor or builder’ s architect.. He was permitted ever ob. jectioris to testify, and compiled chis own” hearsay’ exhibits, 594 of them (Ex: 17—objection, Vol. IVE, 63 “5), which were. 1 ecived as ‘‘official government documents,”’ and 80 voluntecred by the trial court to the jury (Vol. Mi, D. 648). Mr.. Crowder Rtated - that the cost .to restore: the ° futire. building, painting, and all ely would” be $37, S23 (Ext 17; 111 °692) ; that it w ould, cost $20,471.27 to restore * the waka where it Was In 1942 » less: ordinary depre- * ciation, inelnding exeessive use (Ex: 18; ITT, 641) ; and — $17 750.40. «Volv ITT, 654) for ‘other items of replacenient: His” estimates total $59,748 OL. No ‘other figures were of- ~ atte fered by either. side that, were less than this amount for ... - the restoration. of the: building: and the equipment, power plant, ete. Neverthe less, without evidence from : any Sour. the jurt found that’ this ‘total damage was “$45,776.03. - (“Rental’? 5 2,000 ; all damages, S45, 776.03: total judg- ment based ¢ on jury rs verdict, manent. (Vol. I, 95-6.) ()) W itness Weber (Vol. TE, D-7) who? never rant a laundr ‘y, who never. bought or: sa laundry, machinery or equipment, and was: not a laundryman, stated as a. “ r ay were told 90 iariassh aviilece that did not appear Rare as evidence es dvring the’ trial, Error, Aplt’s. br.,. pp. 25-6; Vol. I, 164. These were: ; : “interferenct. with the businéas, frustration of the’ business enterprise. in- convenience tothe ow ner, the unwillingness of the owner to part with his. ~ property tempofitrily * * * \° Apsued and briefed, Prag. Law IIL Aplt’s. oe br.. p. 124, stating: “The conduct of: the trial must. be @roper, or revers- "ible error re@ults.. Citing 44 Neb. 825, 320-383, 13.N. W. 24168. Circuit af. Cotrt rule limiting pages to 85 r stopped fiirther Gocntten, bot the error is obvions and elementary. er er, ; ‘ a fare | Sf oe : t . : : : ie 7 ‘ ~~ . 1 ey ie ie a ee : | professional appraiser?*! Vox the government “(HH 736) that: the total rental for’ the 3.6 yéars ‘should be $70,000 ic per year, or a total. ‘of gio 2,000. “That -was exaetly. the» sum the. jury. found. .Under the foran of the Exhibit 22 © * 43 s (Vol. Til, #3) gpd the court’s instruction (Vol. I, 159) that. interest ‘on arate items would: produce ’ a proper result, no other: conclusion Was ett for the jury. (c) eis: a Sholes, for the goveritmient, areal estate man who nev er bought or sold any laundry ma- chinery or equipment, never operated ‘a laundry, was per- -ynitted to testify: that the annua rental, including exces- sive use, ‘should be $65,663.00 per year, plus additional sts of rgstoration above. normal depreciation of $16, 680.- Mr. holes’ tots! of all compensation was, for the pe- riod #253,066,90 (Vol. IT, pp. 115-8 | Ex. 24, 776; 779; 7803, = Rreacae: +) gi aoe: : ' 2 & 19s Tn the. épitiion of the cireuit ‘court (Vol: TV, 14) the court said, ‘‘The jury 3 verdict was well within the evi- _.dence. W hile the. total ‘award was much less than the amount claimed by the company, ifgis exceeded: by about $40, 000.06, the highest estimate made by any goverhment expert, witness.”” “+ oF It will gaan by a ‘careful analys sis of “the exhib. its above referred to and-which were received i in evidence . over objection, that the jury’s - verdict was less than the . 8.1 Vol. III, pp. 723 ; 705: “‘F28-9 ; 738-7: TH: TAT: 749: Ex. 23,°T50; Ex. - estimate for restoration made Dy Mr. der 043.- ? 01). by apprviximdtely $15,000.00. The verdict for the ME ad , ie Ce if Rt: ae: » i - 2. on ene ict ee fl aa “venta}"* avas that fixed by the witnéss Ww ber ($252,000.- 00). and almost identical with the total sum ‘for all pur . * poses fixed by the witness Sholes for the.gov ernment. | 621. Under the instructions ‘of the court for all prac- tical purposes the* jury was denied the right to vonsider .: any’ evidence of the petitioner's Witne ssses_ generally,?*. 22. Mirror haa thus bets 5 ‘ = . : (T,2 2) - q : e rs ; ’ ‘ : £1,553) : | ay 21, 8 Jrine 90, 144 - Apr. 6, “44 50,000 Apr. 13, 1944 . rae a atic 41, 59) a © : r Samar ; eras sue wate eas op Aug. 12, 1944 Prune 30, 1945. ° Aug. 10; 44° 50,000 *' Ang. 18, 1944 ‘ eter ere ‘ a (1,68) ~ 3 . (Ip 72). | a May 28,1945 “June 30, 1946 Ang. 8,45 65,000 Aug. 11, 1985 4 peer - ; : : 5 ae \ . : . e (I, 89) Judgment, i sol de a fae a? $297,776.08. a = he Loepeeee - ; April 9, 1946 °° June 11, °48. 98,124.27 Aug. 16, 1946 : Boe $875,000.00 ° - Lees ee ' Shan te gl eae eens Ra asin pod Par Pq, by purchase . : TM: ; aoe - os . » of govt, mach, ‘ _ _. Mar. 23, “460 18,089. HS = ail as ee 28. The» ‘petitioner. herein’ claimed interest ‘at 6% . on the $297,776.03 judgment as additional morn for the’ taking, beginning with the date of the. ¢ ng to the’ time a hae elected by the government : to PSY h taking, June 80, 1946. “Lhe property was ‘Geclared Surplus arid aban-. - doned to the ‘petitioner ‘on March 23, 1946 (I, 97). Ad-_. apd mittedly from the date’ the funds shown on the fore-— 4 +e. going table were paid into the Registry of ° Court, the : * 6% would abate. There re remains in the Registry-of Court | “approximately $25,000, pending appeal (I, 139). 29.- The court granted no interest whatever ¢ on .$45,- ; 776; 03 of the-judgment. It should. have granted interest at 6% thereon from the date of taking: on November 21, 1942. ‘Instead of zr anting interest on $252 ,000. at 6% from ~ November 21, 1942 (less ‘the paymerits_n osit— _in‘the Registry-of Court w with interest hee the court after trial treated’ each year as a new ‘taking without referetice to. the original tirne of taking, and. hy. so doing _ the apa cnuid in the seg eent rendered yas de-, — > . %, @ ; oes > : “ « . + . agua ~ ‘Shape ’ amd, z : 5 r re 2 ar” ae nied $21, 314.7 (2, at time of judgment, for interest compen- sation bali the: Statute, (40 U. S.C. § 258 a). This de- nial of. interest was asgigned - error, ‘jseussed, and ~ argued ander: point XX, page 66,. appellant? s brief, and Proposition. of: Law. IV with the discussion. thereof on ‘pages 125- @¢ of appellant’s brief referring to petitianer’s motion ‘in “arrest of. judgment (I, 97) and motion Tor new ‘ trial Al 107). The trial court failed to: correct this point: \ relied” upon and: ar gued as above shown. Also the court ‘refused to: grant interest on. $34,875.50 in’ supplies that. : were condemned _and taken _by the government on No- ? vember 21, 1942, and not paid for until July 8, 1943. This interest up to the time of the judgment on ‘April 9, 1945, amounted to $1, 307. 11. Both tliese items. of interest wer’ _ properly before the: trial court” and the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal Statute cited clear-- dy covers the situation of granting interest as contended by petitioner. Both items now aggregate in excess: of _+ $2 25,000. “The ‘ cases to susfain Prop. of Law IV, Aplt’s. tr, pp. 125-6, seem to. announce the only applicable law. The statute refers to interest. for all purposes and makes no such permissive exception dis erroneously made. (Apit’ 8. br, app. Pe 6. 40-2 U. 8. a C.. See. 258a. Infra, p. 40.) ° Smee > ot. Axsigned as Error Aplt’s 8. ‘br? p. 66, argued, on p..126. Contained in, Answer stricken, Vol. I, p. 30. Pet. in error, p. 51(2). Discussed by Court, Vol, TI, p. 183; Motion in arrest of judgment denied, Vol. I, p. 98, ITI. Motjon for new trial denied, Vol..1. p. 108(4). There was no disagreement regard- - ing this item and when paid. The facts aye not in dispute. ‘Fhe government . Claims because’ it vohintarily paid the item and the check was accepted, that concluded she matter. , However, the supplies wer@ taken aleng with - all else. Paynients may be received without — to fagther rights ater Sek, See Us HO. 04. Boe UTM H ‘ ‘ - irate s: “2 eae | _ (QUESTIONS. PRESENTED yy, | Did the trial - ‘court commit “veversible Ox, harmless. ‘error under 28°U. 3. C.. 9891, Jud.: Code’ § 269, 1): refusing to admit evidence, (2) bg. refusing to reee “certain evidence offered, ° (3). by receiving certain’ evi- dence over ‘objection, (4) by giving the -court’s instruc-.’ tions considered all together, (9) by refusing to give €er-” tain instructions requested by ‘petitioner, and | (6) “by overruling the *motion in arrest. of judgment and over- . Fuling the motion for new trial? havens oF Is not the opinion of ‘the United States Cirenit Court of Appeals in “error by. stating that the judgment res flected all the elements of value which iawfully might -be | considered in determining the issue of just compensation , ng . to. which the petitioner | was ee and that no errors of | .' law were. committed by the’ trial court ‘that would war- . br, pp., 89-124.) These references’, sufficiently - x rant a reversal? The record shows’ thirty-two points re- - _ lied. upon 4 ‘for reversal, each of which was discussed with , ~ “reeard "page references given. (Apit’ 8. Dr.; pp. 14-88; dis# eussed and’.argued’ Prop. ‘L. 1, II, JIT, ‘aid IV, Api, fute the opinion of the ciréeuit court that most of th points " relied upon for reversal ‘‘dre. not argued in the/brief md - virtually all of them: reflect* the divergence Af views of counsel for the. Company . and those of -fhe trial court - relative to the proper standards for. penning just compensation.” a on TV, pr: 6-7. ) VO: “ee * . ? im os OARS ae . ° ~ >. . : ° A ? ss ? eee” = a AN é - . 5 ‘ ° w . a 2) * In*attompting to arrive at just. compensation; was it result of the taking, with ‘knowledge’ of the resulting dam-- age, all the’ existing routes -eonstituting the most valuable : of the- -eomponent parts of the composite property? (Aplt’s. br. . Error XIII, pp. on Soca PP. 6- 7, u Ww ith 1 foot, notes.)- ‘Did not thy trial’ ‘court err -in ruling out the evi- . dence of the fetitioner that it was completely, and en- tirely: drive . from business by virtue, of the taking and «— - eould | n ‘re-establish itself bgquuse of the obvigus -re- ‘sult of the taking, and the tie ‘“niecemeal”?’ pay © ( , plans adopted by ‘the government? aple, supra, p. 19; Epfor XIX, Aplt’s. br.. p. 61; Prép. I Il, Pe AW; Vol. 2, 437-9; supra p. Ay. . \ eS sy doce e Did not the trial tourt. err, Sa ~aiestiae: audits of the : company, “competently prepared, from which might be ar- gued the facts that any: dealer for the property for any . purpose would desire to know? (Vol. H, Ex. 1-7;-pp: 188-. - 221; Error Vil,. _Aplt’s.. br:, PP. 28- 33 3. argue Prop. L. 1, pp. 95- 8; supra, p. 5.) te a Vi. | ‘Did not the trial court err in vébictiad the evidence i of the competent witness Judd, who — to prove. for 7 Ap eo ; - nét error for the trial-court to deny the petitioner the .” = —— . 3 56 st & . “2” —_ . @ *: : se . a Iv eS = : = ; $ ‘ , . ae Pia ae" . —. . . > » ‘ ; oes se »~ s 6 the consideration -of jhe jury in a: sessing’, petitioner's s “sorvicing company, and “who. offered: to-: “prove whit - it -that company in the City of Omaka to re- -establish those : routes: ‘over. the succeéding three years after the plant’ | was abandoned to the: petitioner. {Supra pp. 6-9; ‘Vol. | | _H, 367; Ex. 14, pp. 370-1, 372, 376, 380. Error XY, Aplt’s: . may ’. 91, and XVI, p. 53. Discussed, Aplt’s. br., , Prop: a i LT, p. 89.) a ; * : aK e. | VII. = Did’ not the court err, after: ‘the Detitionsr’s S case was closed; by permitting a government’ witness, (Crowder), who: failed to qualify properly as a competent authority on costs, to give his estimates of the probable cost to " regtore the property, including the building and mac hin- ery, which estimates consisted of. 594 bearsay items; ‘and « . over objettion, the*court remarking: in the presence of © the jury that such 594 documents were ‘‘government docu- ments’’. and’ ‘official - reports’ and with such prestige : “were admitted? (Aplt’s. br., ‘Error XXVI,. pz 70; argued . Prop. L: Tt, p-. 1093_cross- exam.,* Vol. IIT, Pe 641; ‘648° BERS 656-669. Supias pp. 14; 16; 17; 19.) ee : [a oe : Did not the court err in receiving the evidence, over ‘objection, of the ‘govefnment witnesses (Weber . and : damages. the ead Value-of the trade routes in the course’ of: businessé and as an inherent: part of the business af ae, 7 would cost the. -company- based upon the experience of §% Sholes), neither of whom -was quuilified to state that. the ; \ fair, reasonable compensation for “temporary. use’? was a ‘sum of. money based upon interest on, the value of thes. : fae d 3 ee bidding ‘eapacatalye the aching. and equipmérit sep- arately, and the land separately, as appraised ‘by thie wit- ‘nesses. themselv es, wher the witnesses themselves could - give .no ‘precedent in the laundry, business. for such a method for just compensation ahd when the court had before it a more. fair. and just; method of - arriving at just. compensation. by ‘the difference ‘in. the values of the property before and @fter. taking, or by fixing compen- ‘sation. based upon the fair, reasonable Value of the prop- erty at the time of taking? (Weber, Vol. I, 721-757; Br- . ror XXVIi, Aplt’s br. pp. 72-5; argtied Prop. .L, H; p. 111, Sholes;-¥ol, IIT, 760-80t; Error ‘XXVIII, Apit’s, ‘br., pp. 75-8; argued Prop. L. IL, p. pte Bubre, pp. 6, ‘U1, 18) | _ IX. ? Did ‘nk the trial court err. in nullifying the evidence of — ihe three officers and owners of. thie company when they” offered their estimates of the fair, reasonable. rental . value-of the physical assets, exclusive of good. will, trade - routes, and: trade name, when. sich, witnesses were the . only qualified witnesses to give sia testimony? And ~ further, did.not the trial court err in withholding its rul- ing. on the goverriment’s s objection to such testimony and ‘then’ renounce it by instructions thus-leaving no other ‘tes- timony | before the jury on such° subject, as stated in: the instructions | of the: court except. the ‘‘expert wiiuess- es’? who. gave. as a ‘proper measure of damage, interest on land, building,,and machinery?. (H. A. J., Vol. Il, -421- 443; Error XVIII, Aplt’s. - br.,” pp...56- -61. F. oS, Vol. TH, 454, 460; Error XX, Aplt's. br., pp. 63-4. A. L. J., Vol. II, 367; Error XIV,. Aplt’s. br., 48-51. The court’s _ * lege” ; ' instructions, Vol. I, 15%: 161. Error, I, “Apit’ s. bt, pp. 2 15-19, Argued, Prop. LL I, “Tt, pp. 8S, 109.) -Suprs, Pv 13- ae) ye aN a . 6 : ¥ xX, . ~~ od } 2 4 ‘ : - «! . \ oa , pa Were. not the composite instryctions | of the trial “se e court: SO at variance with both the fhets and the appli- cable - ‘law as to sulistantially prejatlice the rights of the z 6 petitioner by denying it just compensation, even: under the: measure Of damage. -plan. adopted by the° court for the conduct of the case? (C ‘ourt’s inst., Vol. I » PP. 197-165; Error . Aplt’s.. br., “pp, 15-19; Prop. %.. IH,-p. 124. Inst. requested by petitioner, refused, Vol.-I, PP 172-8. Supra _ pp. 12-14.) : . ; - , — “Did not the court commit reversible error, in refis- ° ing? “thé rebuttal testimony of, the petitioner’ s “witnesses to rebut the government’ s withesses on the cost to repair and replace the: ‘broken parfs . of. the building, machinery, g equipment, boilers, and. power plant, especially under the | ‘ indefinite plan. for measuring damages finally adopted br . the trial judge? (Aplt’ s. br., pp. 82, 83; 87; argued Prop. LE: TH, p. 124. Petitioner submitted asa Pi ai : ‘ ee # ae oe XIl. a , 2 s*e be x Tn an action in condemnation for just eompe nsation, 24s terror for: the court to instruct the jury that the case before them is not one for “damages”? but is an ‘‘in- | op... that: -— ae “Rebuttal testimony, if substantial and material, shall - ? be, received | (56 Neb. 600,605, 77 N. W. 120): although -. properly in the main case”’; supra, pp. .18-19)..". ‘ quest’? (F rror i. Aplt's -br.,. p. 16: Di LT, p. 88; Volt, p. 185:) | ‘ eqs f NIL a a | Did fiot the court commit reversible error when it it in- structed the jury to disregard. evidence which was entirely absent from any testisnony of evidence offered or received at the. trial? The court instructed ° the jury to-allow just . compensation “without any sentimental valués, without any good will, or the faét that it was a going concern, _ or the fact that they were prt to a lot of consequential a . damages. That is what they refer to. Consequential. _damages are just their hard tuck tliat they happened to ) he selected, ‘the ‘sarhe as it would ibe the hard luck’ of: _* your son if he were called into the firmy. ”* (Vol. I, 159; . Error i -l, ‘Apt sd i, b 18; Prop, L. TI, P. 109.) Did: not: the fm err in failing to dilbtgeet 40 v. ‘S.C. §258a°as amended. i It’s. br.; appehdix, p. ‘€) as granting petitioner as a. mattet of, statutory Jaw. 6% interest on the entire judgment ‘of ‘the jury ‘from the date of the taking? Did “not the éourt err by deciding, without judicial precedent 6% Je interest only frou the beginning _of each fiscal year as if i in fact there had been a‘separate taking. of the same property -at the beginning of each. fiseal year? (Error XXII. Aplt's. ‘br.,. p. 66; argued» > Aplt’s.. br., Prop. -L. IV, 'p. 125. To thé. same effect, did snot the court err in failing to ‘grant interest on $34,875.- - 50 of supplies condemned ° and. taken on November 22, “1942, but not paid for until July 8, 1943? ’ Points raised in answer, Vol, I, p. 30; stri¢kéer, Vol. Il, p: 183; raised . in’ pet. in error, Vol. I, Pp. 52; raised again: in ‘niotion in ussed Prop: + ee ae tek | arrest pf judgment, Vo. I; p. 798, overruled ; aid in mo- tion for new trial, Vol. nF p.. 108, overrileds. judgment ae entered denying interest ‘as claimed, Vof. I, 103-7. Er- por XS, | Aplt’s. br., p. 665, Prop. L. nV, P. 125 55 40.0, ; & C4 dae Sink pp: 19-21.) * = ear : ° e Win a “Did not the trial court commit rever sible pro wpen’ repeatedly throughout the trial and in its instructions to. . the jury it stated that the law amnouneed by the Supreme - | Court of “9 United States im the S.'v. General Miiore Co., 323 U. 8. 873, decided« January 8, 194, and in U. S. ‘te sa Petty abit: Co., 327. U. S. B72, decided February 5, ; 1946, requiréd the odurt to instruet that no damages could be considered : (Vol. I, p..155); jus compensation must ian other competent, measures of damages of gecord (supra, pp. *6- 8;-1f; 18), figured as-interest on the Jand,. -the. building, and the ma- | chinery, separately valued (Vol. xi p. 159) with an addi- .t be limited: to “rent?? to the éxclusio * tional sum, exclusive of general depreciatian, for the es-_ timated cost to repair. or replace" broken parts? (Trial - court refiised to set case for trial unti¥® General Motors “ease decided, Vol. I, pp. 14 and .60; motion for new trial, _ Vol. 4d, ‘p. 124, pars. 25-6; Court’s inst., Vol. I, $2; Vol. am! 5 pp. 230-32. Court made ‘ruling to limit petitiorier’ 8. i case to “rules laid dawn jr.the Utah ease and in the Chi : sago case, the Genera) Motors case.’ | Vol. Ul, p. 232.) >. = .-) the’ abandonment of the property. ‘to\ the petitioner after: 3.6 years of government operation (Supra, pp. 6-9, Vol. . i, P. 448). - The only element of any appreciable ‘value to. het “a bricks, ‘mortar, and machthery of value in, this” € particular business, was its trade routes, which were ‘de: : stroy ed. They ‘were the most: valuable of any part of the | 3 property. Condemnee was a servicing company. It could not carry on business elsewhere. It could not. move, as it was left nothing to move. It-could not serve. Its routes were destroyed. Such, destruction was not. consequential damages, or loss of future businessy. or. frustratibn of a _ plan for develapment, nor was it a loss for: - good will. In -the case at bar, those elements ‘were ‘specifically elimi- nated from all evidence of value offered’ as proof as the record shows (Supra, pp. 13-14; BMY: 8. If. certiorari ‘is granted, petitioner will so dem- + onstrate to this Court. z Ma se - The decision of the Circuit Court of Appez als in this Be decides a federal. question in a way probably i in con- : ee Bet with the applicable decisions of this Court on the . question of the condemnation of property of a going con- cern.: Pa ; ; wi. The’ Cirenit Court opinion. below recites: “Where the right té temporarily use and occupy : ‘property is the interest taken, just compensation is the value on the’ market of the use and occupancy (United States v.-Petty Motor Co., supra), .but evi- dence of loss of profits, damage to good .will,, and ojher such consequential losses must be excluded in determining market value. Id., pages 377-378.” — be .: : 5 ‘jon as authority. The opinion below rules ‘out the trad accepted value of the routes a®an’ existing: asset, by classi- fving them w ager the foregoing stateme at (V ol. IV » ip 8). nt ’ : BR The opinion also* attempts to justify ruling out ‘the evidence. of experts on the v alue of the routes sep-’ _ arated from the. plant as well as an lerbent of the .com- ° _ posite vi alue of the laundry and. dry ‘cleaning establish- * ment as a going concern. ‘The Cireuit Court also approves ‘the denial. of the trial court’ of evidence of the cost to re- | ~ establish these routes. Furthermore, the. opinion ‘upholds a the trial court’s denial of the right ta prove the diffex- 4 ence +n, the value of the property at the date taken and. the date declared surplus and abandoned to the petition- ; er. Such holdings are in conflict with other applicable de- cisions of this Court. / @ +4. For example, Woiecnsahols: Nav. Co. v. U. 8.’ (1893), 148 U. S> 312, 13'S. Ct. 622, was rever rsed_ because ‘the evidence .¢ of the_ value “did- not take into account the franchise — of. the company to. - collect tolls.’ ’. The .court: said: ie ; eas “: 2? @e . * . % - nce om apn cong at Sarton meet oytaste ne Srmanate tenet: . ‘ eS * a . an marcsremangep ey nok ee a . . . *. * ‘ cy ‘ . ® . ® ‘ . @ te ee é RS 0: Sete Crs . , . ‘ ee 5 ‘ . . ' by . . her ’ ™» « ” . . . * P ad . ‘ eo? - . . ‘ ’ . ’ ‘ 2 he e . . ° “ . ° --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386406_0179%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.