Skip to main content
· 12/31/1913

Newell v. Loeb

Citations

  • 77 Wash. 182
  • 137 P. 811
  • 1913 Wash. LEXIS 1914

Syllabus

<p>Eminent Domain — Waterways — Proceedings — Jury Trial— Challenges. In a special proceeding to establish a waterway district, all the defendants must join in peremptory challenges to jurors, since the special law does not provide for peremptory challenges, and the general statutes require all defendants to join.</p> <p>Same — Compensation—Navigable Waters — Diversion—Rights of Riparian Owners. The state being the owner of the beds of navigable rivers, under the constitutional assertion of art. 17, § 1, riparian owners are not, in eminent domain proceedings to establish a waterway district, entitled to damages from the fact that the state will divert the course of the stream and leave their property without access to the water.</p> <p>Same— Benefits — Assessment — Determination — Proceedings. 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 8177-2, requiring the jury to find the maximum amount of benefits.from the establishment of a waterway district, merely fixes a basis for and limitations upon the assessment to be made later, and hence is not objectionable in that the amount of benefits found greatly exceed the cost of the improvement.</p> <p>Evidence — Experts—Opinions—Value. Where expert witnesses on land values qualified on direct examination, their testimony was competent, lack of qualifications disclosed on cross-examination going only to the weight of the evidence.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Proceedings-—-Instructions—Effect of View. In eminent domain proceedings, an instruction to the jury on the subject of their view of the premises, properly stating the effect thereof in weighing and applying the evidence, is not erroneous in that the jury were told that “what they see they know.”</p> <p>Same — Proceedings—Appeal—Review—Verdict. In eminent domain proceedings to establish a waterway district, the jury’s verdict as to the amount of benefits will not be disturbed where supported by evidence, although the same was strongly contradicted.</p> <p>Eminent Domain — Property Subject — Propert

Judges: Mount

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.