- 46 -
options. See, e.g., United States v. Certain Land in the City of
Fort Worth, 414 F.2d 1029 (5th Cir. 1969); United States v.
Smith, 355 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1966); United States v. Playa De
Flor Land & Improvement Co., 160 F.2d 131 (5th Cir. 1947); St.
Joe Paper Co. v. United States, 155 F.2d 93 (5th Cir 1946). The
Supreme Court in Sharp questioned the integrity of such evidence
and stated that for a variety of reasons it often fails to
provide a reliable reference for estimating the value of
property. Sharp v. United States, supra at 348. However, the
rule in Sharp was designed to serve specific purposes and was not
meant to be enforced mechanically or without regard to the
reasons for its existence. University Computing Co. v. Lykes-
Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974). In any event, we
need not consider its application to the instant case as
petitioner correctly asserts that there is no evidence in the
record suggesting that any of the four appraisers, Tidwell,
Hearn, Young, and Dilmore, considered the offers or options to
purchase in their estimation of the fair market value of either
parcel. Although respondent advanced considerable argument with
regard to how this Court should interpret the contents of the
offers and options, we do not think it is necessary for us to
rely upon such evidence in deciding the issues at hand. The
testimony at trial, coupled with the four appraisal reports,
provides ample evidence to support our decision without
consideration of the offers and options to purchase.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011