Chicago & Evanston Railroad v. Blake
Citations
- 116 Ill. 163
- 4 N.E. 488
Syllabus
<p>1. Eminent domain—measure of damages—of contemplated improvements on the land sought to he condemned. On a proceeding to condemn a strip of fifty feet off one side of a lot or block in a city, for a right of way by a railway company, the court allowed the lot owner to exhibit before the jury the plan of a structure he had contemplated erecting on the premises,. t limiting it in its effect as evidence to the purpose of showing the capabilities of the property: Held, that so limited there was no error in admitting the same in evidence.</p> <p>2. If the object of such evidence had been to enhance the damages by showing such a structure would be a profitable investment, it would clearly have been inadmissible.</p> <p>3. Same— considering the value of a part not taken, as a part of the entire lot of ground, and not as a separate property. Where a part of a lot sought to be taken for public use is of greater value considered as a part of the entire lot than if taken as a distinct and separate property entirely disconnected from the residue of the lot, the just compensation for the part so taken is its fair cash or market value when considered in its relations to and a part of the entire lot, and not simply what may appear to be its value as a separate and distinct piece of property.</p> <p>4. Same—of benefits not special to the land a portion of which is sought to he taken. In a proceeding by a railway company to condemn a part of a lot for a right of way, no benefits or advantages which may accrue to lands or property in common with all other property along the line of the proposed railroad by reason of its construction and operation, can be set off against or deducted from the compensation for the value of the property taken and damaged by such proposed road.</p> <p>5. Evidence—opinion as to the value of property sought to he condemned—competency of witness. Heal estate brokers in a city who testify they are acquainted with the value of real estate in the neighborhoo
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- approving a jury instruction that states the rule
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Mulkey
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Department of Public Works & Buildings v. LambertIllinois Supreme Court· 1952-01-24· cited 45×
- Forest Preserve District v. KercherIllinois Supreme Court· 1946-05-21· cited 40×
- Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railway Co. v. StickneyIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-06-18· cited 38×
- Peoria Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Peoria Terminal Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1893-06-19· cited 36×
- Works v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1892-05-12· cited 31×
- Kankakee Park District v. HeidenreichIllinois Supreme Court· 1927-12-21· cited 29×
- Union Railway Co. v. HuntonTennessee Supreme Court· 1905-04-15· cited 24×
- Forest Preserve District v. DraperIllinois Supreme Court· 1944-05-16· cited 22×
- Mohr v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa· 1963-10-15· cited 21×
- Chicago, Burlington & Northern Railroad v. BowmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1887-11-11· cited 21×
- Sexton v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1902-12-16· cited 21×
- City of Springfield v. West Koke Mill Development Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois· 2000-04-14· cited 20×
- Wanless v. Peabody Coal Co.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1938-01-17· cited 20×
- Illinois Central Railroad v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-11-01· cited 19×
- Johnson County Broadcasting Corp. v. Iowa State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Iowa· 1964-10-20· cited 18×
- Illinois Light and Power Co. v. BedardIllinois Supreme Court· 1931-04-23· cited 18×
- Davis v. Northwestern Elevated RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-12-22· cited 17×
- West Skokie Drainage District v. DawsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1909-12-22· cited 15×
- Spohr v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court· 1903-12-16· cited 14×
- Sanitary District v. Chicago & Alton RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-02-17· cited 14×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.