Expert’s Failure to Explain Basis for Compensation Analysis Renders Testimony Inadmissible

BVLaw
Court Case Digests
September 14, 2018

Access the Full Article

This article is available with a subscription to any of these products:
It is also available in this product:
Already a subscriber or product owner?  Login
This article is also available for purchase. (2,045 words)   Add to Cart >>
Need help? Contact us:
1-503-479-8200 ext 2 or sales@bvresources.com
0811 Timber Tracts
111421 Nursery and Tree Production
daubert
daubert, income approach, admissibility, asset approach, economic damages & lost profits, fair market value (FMV), internal rate of return, rule 702, reliability, company-specific risk premium (CSRP), build-up method, equity risk premium (ERP), condemnation, market value, compensation, income capitalization
Rover Pipeline LLC v. 10.55 Acres
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157188
US
Federal Court
Ohio
United States District Court
Rebekah Smith (plaintiff); Eric J. Gardner, Mark D. Koeninger, Cathy Roche (defendants)
Lioi

Summary

In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”

See Also

Rover Pipeline LLC v. 10.55 Acres

Full Text of Court Cases
September 14, 2018

In condemnation case requiring fair market value analysis to determine compensation due to landowners, court excludes defense expert testimony, citing failure to follow mandated methodology and standard of value; court calls aspects of loss calculation based on income approach “disturbing.”

This article also appears in:
The Comprehensive Guide to Economic Damages, Seventh Edition