*1 so indigent
viсes for defendants and that coun- ways:4 ties could do so one of two Utah, By Through and its ROAD COMMISSION, Appellant, Plaintiff and рrovide Authorize the court to * ** quali- services appointing COMPANY, GENERAL OIL corpora a Utah awarding attorney fied case and each tion, Respondent. Defendant
him ex- reasonable No. 1 1178. penses ; or Supreme Court of Utah. (2) Arrange provide those services nonprofit legal as- through aid or other 1968. * *
sociations *. provisions Chapter
Although the permis mandatory Title and not 77 are
sive, appеllant attorneys not follow did proper procedure, as set forth They
Washington County case. should prо county claim with filed IS, Chapter Title U.C.A.19S3
vided in
and, rejected, bring it if is suit thereof.5
provisions of Section County
The contention of Weber it be re Dixon case that should not
sponsible appeal fees on
appointment by this with
out merit. No costs awarded.
Affirmed. TUCKETT,
CROCKETT, C. J., Supp. rеjected. However, they 77-64-1(6), 4. U.C.A.1953 failed appellants 17-15-12, In the Hunter did U.C.A. case file suit as County, file claim with Summit which
(J1 situated adjacent University Avenue acquisition Utah. widening improving
necessitated exit and an of the street as access to *2 After from IS south of Provo. Interstate granted by the change а had of venue been court, tried in the District the case was County. At the con Court Salt Lake of February, proceeding in clusion the the in favor of jury returned a the verdict de The defendant in sum of $4147.52. the a fendant thereаfter the court for moved Rule pursuant provision of new trial upon that the 59(a) ground the law, inadequate а matter of verdict as weight of against the clear and manifest evidence, appearing thus the given рrejudice been under the influence of and in favor the against landowner the Gen., Hansen, Atty. Gary A. Phil L. further, government. subpara And Frank, Gen., City, Atty. Asst. Salt Lake graph (6) the that the verdict was Rule Lewis, Lewis, Rex of Howard & S. weight and manifest agаinst the clear appellant. for Alternatively defendant the evidence. the in the verdict an additur to thе moved for Jr., Campbell, M. Han- Robert S. Stewart $15,000. upon de ruling the sum of son, Jr., City, Salt Lake for motion, that the court cоncluded fendant’s was, as a matter jury the of the verdict TUCKETT, Justice: law, good inadequate, and that cause domain, This an action eminent motion. As supports the defendant’s by brought acquire the State of Utah to an additur to alternative the court ordered by certain land owned the defendant for the award verdict in such a sum аs would highway purposes. The issue before $15,000 the the the defendant sum of the court below was the fair market vаlue further land taken. The court’s order property of the taken as of State de- March in the event the State possible the additur a new would a
dined
he
in 1957 as
station
site:
granted. The State declined to tender or to The
had
property
frontage
of 360 feet
$15,000
pay
along
and a new trial was had. We
At the time
University Avenue.
purchase
not determine
or not
need
whether
had
zoned as
been
ruling
court’s
an additur was erron-
“agricultural” by
City. During the
Provo
has
eous inasmuch as that
issue
now be-
year 1958 the State
Commission
Road
moot
the trial
come
de novo.
public hearings
conducted
area
Provo
planning
which were concerned with the
hеre,
State, appellant,
seek a reversal
Highway
of Interstate
As a result
judgment
returned after
secоnd
public hearings
publicity it
of the
be-
trial which resulted in a
favor
verdict
$22,050.
of the defendant
the sum of
generally
сame
known
Interstate
claims that
State
Highway would be
within a
constructed
during
question.
distance
short
of the
admitting
second trial
court erred
City
governing body
In 1959
Provo
properties
evidence of market values
af-
subject property
rezoned
sur-
question.
improvement
fected
rounding
“spe-
area
agricultural
from
highway
ciаl
new clas-
service” zone. The
As to
first claim
*3
stations,
permitted
sification
the rule
jurisdiction
error
in this
has al
motels,
high-
restaurants and other similar
ways been that a
a new trial
motion for
way
It is
services.
contention
Statе’s
is addressed to the sound discretion of
permitting
that the
presume
evidence
trial
court. This court will
proр
the discretion
the trial court was
in
enhanced
of market value which
fact
clearly
record
erly exercised unless the
project
It
itself.
transcript
contrary.1
shows
entering
contention that factors
into mаr-
the court
rulings
the evidence and
value, including
comparable
ket
sales
part
trial
the first
was not made
property, which
influenced
have been
appeal.
on
record
a record we
Without
cоnstruction,
proposed
relevant
are not
say
unable
are
its
the court abused
determining
just
what is
in granting
discretion-
a new trial.
taking
property.
for the
the defendant’s
contention
the con-
same
The record
the de
discloses
purchased
fendant
demnor in the case of
Con-
Irrigation
Moyle,
1. Lehi
204;
Co. v.
4 Utah
Beck v.
Coali
Dutchman
327,
867; Klinge
Co.,
9 P.
Pacific
v. Southern
Mines
2d
tion
Utah
.,
Co
89 Utah
CROCKETT, J., and CALLISTER C. (dissenting): Justice
Respectfully . I dissent. opinion ques- asserts that the
The main as a condition
tion anent additur moot,
a new new my opinion no granted. there is mootness, that the of a
such but additur trial based such conditional on important case,—
is the most factor in this
else the have been antithetical. result would maneuver, opinion, my
The additur
clearly of the traditional is an invasion clear- jury, as is
historical function of Scheidt,
ly expressed in Dimick v. 293 U.S.
474, 55 L.Ed. S.Ct. (1935), know, yet which so far as I
has not been reversed. Ward, Conserv. Dist. v. 10 Utah 2d