Martin v. Miss. Transp. Comm'n


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2005-CA-02287-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 04-10-2007
Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part

Additional Case Information: Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - Opinion based on inadmissible evidence - M.R.E. 703
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Chandler, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Carlton, JJ.
Procedural History: Jury Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-10-2005
Appealed from: TATE COUNTY SPECIAL COURT OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Judge: Ann H. Lamar
Disposition: JUDGMENT ENTERED AWARDING $156,000 FOR COMPENSATION OF PROPERTY TAKEN
Case Number: SV-2002-316LT

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: JAMES W. MARTIN, AND WIFE, MAE A. MARTIN AND MARTIN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC.




MARK D. HERBERT, LISA ANDERSON REPPETO



 

Appellee: MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION JOHN MCNEIL, JAMES T. METZ  

Synopsis provided by:

If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - Opinion based on inadmissible evidence - M.R.E. 703

Summary of the Facts: The Mississippi Transportation Commission filed an eminent domain action and sought to condemn the real property owned by James Martin and Mae Martin and any leasehold interests, which included two sign structures owned by Martin Outdoor Advertising, Inc. in Senatobia. The jury returned a verdict that awarded the Martins and Martin Outdoor compensation for the real estate taken in the amount of $36,000 and compensation for both signs taken in the amount of $120,000. The Martins and Martin Outdoor appeal.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: The Martins and Martin Outdoor argue that MTC failed to present competent evidence as to the value of the signs or the land, because the testimony of its expert was inadmissible as it solely relied on a quote to build a sign given by Memphis Sign Erectors. While the testimony of one expert witness may not serve as a conduit for hearsay about another expert’s opinion, there is an exception if the expertise of the testifying witness is such as to permit that witness’s adoption of the statements of a similar expert. In addition, M.R.E. 703 states that an expert’s opinion may be based off of inadmissible evidence, such as hearsay, if it is of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field. Here, the expert demonstrated little to no knowledge as to the valuation of a business sign based on the cost approach. He merely called Memphis Sign Erectors, a company he had no personal knowledge about, and depreciated the quote that it gave him. Thus, the trial court was in error for failing to strike the testimony and MTC failed to establish a prima facie case with admissible evidence as to the value of the billboards. The verdict is reversed and remanded for a new trial as to the proper value of the billboards taken. The Martins also argue that the expert’s valuation of the land was based upon a factual error and therefore unreliable, because there were two leases that covered the sign sites taken not one lease for the entire property. Because they never made an objection or motion to strike the testimony as unreliable, the objection was waived.


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court