R. H. Phillips and Jessie E. Phillips, His Wife v. United States

Caution
243 F.2d 1·1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4825
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 22, 195715156_1California2,318 words

Opinion

Opinion

Lemmon, J.

Never niggardly in its standards for the compensation of the expropriated landowner, the Supreme Court has grown progressively more liberal in its canons for the reimbursement of those who are dispossessed through the exercise of the right of eminent domain.

In evaluating condemned real estate, the total worth of the property must be considered. It frequently has been remarked that expropriation is an action in rem. It is not concerned with the taking of the rights of different persons, but with the seizure of the property itself.

If we attempt to cut a condemnation proceeding into slices, it bleeds.

1. Statement of Facts

The appellants were the owners of a ranch.in the eastern part of the State of Washington, of which the greater part, consisting of 33,213.13 acres, was taken by the appellee under the power of eminent domain.

Four condemnation proceedings involving the property were brought by the ap-pellee against the appellants in the Court below. On October 26, 1955, the four cases were consolidated for trial.

On November 4,1955, the jury brought in verdicts as follows:

Civil No. 452: Leasehold interest in 4,086.69 acres; taken on February 10, 1950; verdict, $5,062 per…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.