Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

280 Ala. 71

189 So.2d 912

1 Div. 197.

State v. Graf

STATE of Alabama v. Marie H. GRAF et al.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided September 8, 1966.

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1966-09-08

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ *“ * * when the appellant appeals from a judgment of condemnation, and the only question tried is the amount of the award, the appellant cannot have review of any ruling on the giving or refusing of requested charges to the jury, or in admitting or excluding evidence, unless appellant shall assign for error and argue the overruling of appellant’s motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive or inadequate.” State v. Graf, 280 Ala. 71 , 189 So.2d 912 (1966).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Standard Oil Co. v. State

Relies on State v. Dunlap

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-09-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983

22 state decisions

140196619701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Harry Hardy, Jos. M. Matranga and Barry Hess, Mobile, for appellant.

¶2Austill, Austill & Austill, Mobile, for appellee Graf.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4In a proceeding to acquire land by condemnation, the state appeals from a judgment of the circuit court, rendered on a jury verdict, awarding $56,585.00 to the landowner.

¶5The state's motion for new trial was overruled, but that ruling has not been argued or assigned for error.

¶6The state argues and assigns for error:

¶7That the court erred in overruling appellant's objection to evidence showing that the landowner had received from a prospective buyer an offer to purchase the land for $6,000.00 per acre;

¶8That the court erred in sustaining appellee's objection to a question propounded by appellant inquiring of a witness with respect to the necessity for service roads if the property were developed;

¶9That the court erred in allowing appellee to make improper argument to the jury; and

¶10That the court erred in refusing to grant appellant an exception.

¶11As we understand the record, the sole issue tried in the circuit court was the amount of damages to be awarded to the property owners.

¶12*913 The appellant has not complained specifically that the compensation awarded was excessive.

¶13Under the rule laid down in State v. Dunlap, 279 Ala. 418, 186 So.2d 132, when the appellant appeals from a judgment of condemnation, and the only question tried is the amount of the award, the appellant cannot have review of any ruling on the giving or refusing of requested charges to the jury, or in admitting or excluding evidence, unless appellant shall assign for error and argue the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial on the ground that the verdict was excessive or inadequate.

¶14There is no good reason why rulings of the trial court sustaining or overruling objections to argument of counsel, or refusal to allow an exception, should stand on any higher ground than rulings on admission of evidence or instructions to the jury.

¶15Following State v. Dunlap, supra, we hold that appellant cannot have a review of the rulings assigned and argued as error in the instant case because appellant did not assign and argue that the court erred in overruling the ground of the motion for new trial that the verdict is excessive.

¶16Affirmed.

¶17LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON, GOODWYN, MERRILL, and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.

¶18COLEMAN, J., dissents.

¶19COLEMAN, Justice (dissenting).

¶20In dissent in State v. Dunlap, supra, this writer undertook to set out the reasons why he thinks the majority are wrong in that case. The writer is of opinion still that the holding in Dunlap is wrong, and adheres to his dissent.

/280/ala/71 · .json · Public domain