Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore
| Docket Number: | 2001-CA-01039-SCT Linked Case(s): 2001-CA-01039-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: |
Opinion Date: 10-16-2003 Opinion Author: Smith, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Eminent domain - Expert testimony - M.R.E. 702 - Daubert standard - Appraisal testimony Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Waller and Cobb, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Carlson, JJ. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J., Easley and Graves, JJ. AND GRAVES, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - EMINENT DOMAIN |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-28-2001 Appealed from: DeSoto County Special Court of Eminent Domain Judge: Mills E. Barbee Disposition: A jury awarded the Appellees damages in the amount of $1,370,000. Case Number: CO-99-0711 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Transportation Commission |
RICHARD G. NOBLE
HOLLAMAN MARTIN RANEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY:
BILLY DON HALL |
||
| Appellee: | Dennis McLemore and Tammy McLemore | TAYLOR D. BUNTIN |
|
|
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 - M.R.E. 702 - Daubert standard - Appraisal testimony |
| Summary of the Facts: | Dennis and Tammy McLemore owned 1,980 acres of land in DeSoto County. The Mississippi Transportation Commission desired to obtain a 174-acre portion of the McLemores’ property to construct an interstate highway. When negotiations failed, the Commission filed an eminent domain action. The jury awarded the McLemores total compensation and damages in the amount of $1,370,000. The Commission appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Expert testimony The analysis for admission of expert testimony is found in M.R.E. 702 which was amended on May 29, 2003. Prior to its amendment, the comment to M.R.E. 702 quoted the well-known Frye test, noting that Rule 702 did not relax the requirement that the scientific principle from which the expert’s opinion is derived must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S.579 (1993), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a non-exhaustive, illustrative list of reliability factors for determining the admissibility of expert witness testimony including whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a high known or potential rate of error; whether there are standards controlling the technique’s operation; and whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community. The modified Daubert standard required the court to determine that the expert testimony is relevant - that is, the requirement that the testimony must assist the trier of fact means the evidence must be relevant. Next, the court must determine whether the proffered testimony is reliable. Many factors may be relevant in determining reliability. The current version of Rule 702 recognizes that the Daubert rule, as modified, provides a superior analytical framework for evaluating the admissibility of expert witness testimony. The Court today adopts the federal standards and applies amended Rule 702 for assessing the reliability and admissibility of expert testimony. Issue 2: Admissibility of appraisal testimony The central issue concerns a component of the appraisal of the McLemores’ expert appraisal witness, referred to at trial as the 750-foot line of damage method. The expert used the 750-foot line method to determine the “after value” of a portion of the McLemores’ property. He testified that the method he employed in his appraisal is, to his knowledge, not printed in any textbook; the method is not taught in seminars; the 750-foot line method is unique to the McLemore appraisal; the 750-foot line method is not “a principle of any kind”; and the 750-foot line method was not taught in any of the courses he completed to obtain his appraiser's licenses in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas. His testimony is entirely speculative. None of the illustrative factors approved in Daubert weigh in favor of allowing his testimony. In addition, his testimony was inadmissible under the abandoned Frye test. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
