« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
· Measure of damage-vacant land-fair cash market value in view of uses to which the land is or may be adapted.
W. C. St. Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 172 Ill. 198. Benefits to land or other right "taken" cannot be considered. Its value is the measure of damage-perpetual easement.
West Side “L” R. R. Co. v. Springer, 171 III. 170. Measure of damage—crossing railroad right of way for highway—decrease in value for railroad purposes—nominal only here.
C. & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Town of Cicero, 157 Ill. 48.
Benefits-General and special.
General benefits to land are not to be considered in estimating the measure of damage to land not taken for a railroad right of way.
P. B. & C. Trac. Co. v. Vance, 225 Ill. 270.
West Side “L” Ry. Co. v. Springer, 171 Ill. 170. Special benefits may be set off against damages to property taken or damaged—what are-cases reviewed.
Met. West Side “L” R. R. Co. v. White, 166 Ill. 375.
Refusal of the opinions of witnesses familiar with store property, as to the effect on the rental values of such property of the erection of an elevated railroad, is reversible error.
Lewis v. Englewood Elevated R. R. Co., 223 Ill. 223. Competency of witnesses as to value in condemnation.
Sanitary Dist. v. P. Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co., 216 Ill. 575. Expert witnesses as to value of land taken for railroad, not required.
Sewell v. C. T. T. R. R. Co., 177 Ill. 93.
Opinion of witnesses, as experts, held not good as to damage done by elevated road.
Met. “L” R. R. Co. v. Dickinson, 161 Ill. 22 (24).
West Side "L" Co. v. Siegel, 161 III. 638.
C. P. & M. R. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 159 Ill. 406.
Evidence, competent and incompetent.
St. L. & I. Belt Ry. v. Barnsback, 234 Ill. 344.
West Skokie Dist. v. Dawson, 243 Ill. 175. Evidence of coal under land several miles distant from land being condemned is not competent, where there is no evidence as to coal under the land to be taken.
E. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Sims, 228 Ill. 9. In condemnation proceedings the assessed value of land cannot be proven to show actual value.
Lewis v. Englewood Elevated R. R. Co., 223 Ill. 223. A price offered by a particular person for land involved in condemnation proceedings is not competent testimony.
C. B. & D. Ry. Co. v. Kelley, 221 111. 498. Evidence that like lands similarly located sold at a certain price is good as bearing on value of lands to be taken by condemnation.
C. & S. Line Ry. Co. v. Mines, 221 Ill. 448.
C. & S. L. Ry. Co. v. Kline, 220 Ill. 334. Special value of land to be condemned due to exceptional conditions may be shown, aside from general values. Railroad yards condemned.
Sanitary Dist. v. P. Ft. W. & C Ry. Co., 216 Ill. 575.
What is competent on question of value where railroad freight and passenger terminals are taken by condemnation for a sanitary canal.
Sanitary Dist. v. P. Ft. W. & C. Ry. Co., 216 Ill. 575. Evidence as to the best use that land taken or damaged by condemnation could be put, is competent.
Hartshorn v. III. Valley Ry. Co., 216 Ill. 392. Whether lands are necessary to be taken by condemnation is a question of fact.
Eddleman v. Union County T. & P. Co., 217 Ill. 409 (415). Evidence as to the effect tearing down one building would have on the value and use of an adjoining building is incompetent, the question being the effect on the market value of the entire property.
Freiberg v. South Side El. Ry. Co., 221 Ill. 508. The fact that land is capable of being subdivided and sold may be shown in condemnation proceedings, but its value after such a subdivision is not material. A map showing a possible subdivision held incompetent.
Martin v. C. & M. Elec. Ry. Co., 220 Ill. 97. A city may by condemnation open a street across a railroad track, and evidence to show user of part of the land to be taken is competent.
C. T. T. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 217 Ill. 343. What proof may be made as to benefits to land not taken in condemnation proceedings.
Hartshorn v. III. Valley Ry. Co., 216 Ill. 392. That railroad company will not have to fence track for six months may be shown, in condemnation.
C. & M. E. Ry. Co. v. Diver, 213 Ill. 26. The uses to which land condemned might be put cannot be shown, unless possible uses affects the value of the land.
I. I. & M. Ry. Co. v. Freeman, 210 Ill. 270. Evidence of cost of filling land condemned is bad.
Brown v. I. I. & M. Ry. Co., 209 Ill. 402.
Evidence and instructions in condemnation.
Sexton v. U. S. Yard Co., 200 Ill. 244. Price paid for land is not good evidence in condemnationwhen.
Languist v. City of Chicago, 200 I11. 69. Damages for land not taken by a telegraph line along public highway may be shown in condemnation-elements of.
Board of Trade Tel. Co. v. Darst, 192 Ill. 47. A plat of a contemplated improvement may be used as evidence in condemnation.
R. I. & E. I. Ry. Co. v. Gordon, 184 III. 456. What another railroad company paid for a right of way through the same land is incompetent in condemnation.
Lyon v. H. & B. I. R. R. Co., 167 III. 527.
Ligare v. C. M. & N. R. R. Co., 166 Ill. 249. Evidence as to value of land taken-sale price of other land
Peoria Gas Light Co. v. Peoria Term. Ry. Co., 146 Ill. 372.
Jury may examine premises when evidence of values is conflicting
I. I. & M. Ry. Co. v. Humiston, 209 Ill. 100. Juries are not permitted to arrive at a verdict by averaging the several sums voted by them. But proof that such method was followed must be clear.
G. & S. R. R. Co. v. Herman, 206 Ill. 34. Jury may exercise their own judgment in determining damages in condemnation when they view premises.
Guyer v. D. R. I. & N. W. Ry. Co., 196 Ill. 370.
St. L. & O. F. Ry. Co. v. Union Bank, 209 Ill. 457.
Compensation in condemnation must be found by the regular jury panel. Sec. 6, Eminent Domain, refers only to proceedings in vacation.
Davis v. Northwestern El. Ry. Co., 170 Ill. 595.
Instructions as to.
Erroneous instructions as to measure of damages in condemnation, outlined and discussed.
C. B. & D. Ry. Co. v. Kelley, 221 Ill. 498.
C. & S. L. Ry. Co. v. Kline, 220 III. 334. An instruction as to form of verdict in condemnation-held reversible error.
C. T. T. R. R. Co. v. City of Chicago, 217 III. 343.
Sexton v. U. S. Yard Co., 200 Ill. 244.
The verdict in condemnation will stand where the jury viewed the premises, the evidence is conflicting and the damages within the range of the testimony.
Pullman Co. v. City of Chicago, 224 Ill. 248.