STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES C. COLEMAN, ET UX, ET AL., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court does not resolve the admissibility question but reverses for a new trial and certifies to the Florida Supreme Court the question of whether section 73.071(3)(b) permits business damages calculation methods excluding fixed expenses in partial takings.
[1] In an eminent domain case involving a partial taking of an established business, whether business damages may be calculated by methods excluding fixed expenses, rather th…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“IN AN EMINENT DOMAIN CASE IN WHICH AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS IS NOT TOTALLY DESTROYED BY A TAKING, DOES SECTION 73.071(3)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES, CONTEMPLATE CALCULATION OF BUSINESS DAMAGES BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN A LOST PROFIT ANALYSIS?”
The certified question of great public importance presented to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the permissible scope of business damages calculations under Florida law.
The Department of Transportation took approximately 25 feet from the front of a parcel leased by appellees for a concrete ornamental statuary business…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Business Damages In Eminent Domain cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to an eminent domain proceeding, the Department of Transportation took approximately 25 feet from the front of the parcel of land leased by appellees for their concrete ornamental statuary business. At issue in this appeal is the admissibility of testimony by appellees’ expert witness on business damages using a method of calculating lost future profits without deducting fixed expenses. The Department presents an identical challenge to the admissibility of such testimony from the same expert witness in State, Department of Transportation v. Murray, 670 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Accordingly, we adopt our opinion on the second issue in Murray as dispositive of this appeal. See also State Dep’t of Transp. v. Manoli, 645 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). In so doing, we certify the following question of great public importance that we certified in Murray:
IN AN EMINENT DOMAIN CASE IN WHICH AN ESTABLISHED BUSINESS IS NOT TOTALLY DESTROYED BY A TAKING, DOES SECTION 73.071(3)(b), FLORIDA STATUTES, CONTEMPLATE CALCULATION OF BUSINESS DAMAGES BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN A LOST PROFIT ANALYSIS? IN THE INSTANT CASE IS THE EXPERT’S BUSINESS DAMAGE CALCULATION A LOST PROFIT ANALYSIS REQUIRING THE DEDUCTION OF FIXED EXPENSES, SUCH AS SALARIES, INTEREST, DEPRECIATION, AND UTILITIES, OR AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS, COGNIZABLE UNDER SECTION 73.071(3)(b), BASED ON DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN VARIABLE EXPENSES AND THE EXCLUSION OF FIXED EXPENSES FROM THE ANALYSIS?
The cause is reversed for new trial.
ERVIN, and MINER, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., dissents with opinion.
BENTON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set out in my separate opinion in State, Depar [*875] tment of Transportation v. Murray, 670 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Transp. v. Manoli, 645 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Eckhart v. State, 670 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- State v. L.N. Murray, 670 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)