ADVERTISEMENT
Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
State Law
: ShowmeblawgsBy stan_sipple
ADVERTISEMENTS
Missouri Supreme Court reverses inverse condemnation verdict from Jackson County Circuit Court for a remittitur or new trial on damages arising from recurring sewage back-ups onto plaintiff's property. Donna Collier, Respondent v. City of Oak Grove, Missouri, Appellant. : SC88580Collier brought an inverse condemnation suit against the city, seeking damages for losses to her real and personal property (recurring sewage back-ups for nearly 12 years). The jury awarded her $200,000 on her real and personal property damage claim, on which the court awarded her more than $139,500 in prejudgment interest from the date of the first uncompensated backup. The court denied motions for remittitur (reduction of damages) or a new trial. The city appeals. Collier failed to present sufficient evidence for the jury to place a value on her loss, the trial court erred in failing to order remittitur or a new trial. Under Article 1 Section 26 Missouri Constitution the state owes the plaintiff for a permanent taking damages for the lost fair-market value of the property. The Court will presume the jury awarded Collier $100,000 for the total taking of her home. Plaintiff still must provide evidence, however, of approximately $100,000 in personal property damages. Plaintiff did not provide information about the type and amount of property she lost or the estimate of its value. The trial court had the option of ordering either remittitur or a new trial, but it failed to do either, so this case must be reversed and remanded (sent back) for further consideration. Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on March 21, 2008 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.









