We’ve had the Kansas Supreme Court’s opinion in Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Strong, No. 110573 (Aug. 28, 2015) in the hopper for a while, but never quite got around to posting it. Something else always seemed to take precedence, and it’s just one of those decisions that doesn’t really reach out and grab you. [Unless you focus on the difference between the court-appointed appraisers’ valuation ($96,465) and that of the jury ($1,922,559). Lowball watch! material, but that’s not why we’re posting it.]

The opinion analyzes the condemnor’s three arguments that the trial court should have kept from the jury evidence offered by the property owners. Kansas has a statute which sets out the “formula” (the court’s words, not ours) for how valuation is calculated in a partial taking. The court notes it is a “simple” formula: the “before” value of the property less the value of the remainder. Fair enough.

The reason why this case doesn’t grab our interest all that much is that the issues, and the court’s resolution, are pretty straightforward. Questions of admission of evidence are important, for sure, but unless there’s some reason that the evidence fatally tainted the outcome, getting a supreme court to overturn a jury verdict is tough. The court rejected each of the condemnor’s arguments:

KCPL asserts three claims of error below. First, KCPL claims the district court erred in denying its repeated motions to exclude or strike the expert testimony evidence offered by the Strongs. KCPL argued below, and reprises the argument on appeal, that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to K.S.A. 26-513(e). Next, KCPL alleges the district court improperly permitted the Strongs’ experts to testify pursuant to an alternative, nonstatutory “development approach” without first laying a foundation that development of the property was imminent. Finally, KCPL claims the district court erred in admitting evidence regarding a 2004 option contract the Strongs entered into with a developer.

Slip op. at 2-3. If these sort of things grab you, read on.  

Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. Strong, No. 110,573 (Kan. Aug. 28, 2015)