Image
Copyright & Fair-use Agreement
UNLV Special Collections provides copies of materials to facilitate private study, scholarship, or research. Material not in the public domain may be used according to fair use of copyrighted materials as defined by copyright law. Please cite us.
Please note that UNLV may not own the copyright to these materials and cannot provide permission to publish or distribute materials when UNLV is not the copyright holder. The user is solely responsible for determining the copyright status of materials and obtaining permission to use material from the copyright holder and for determining whether any permissions relating to any other rights are necessary for the intended use, and for obtaining all required permissions beyond that allowed by fair use.
Read more about our reproduction and use policy.
I agree.Information
Digital ID
Permalink
Details
More Info
Rights
Digital Provenance
Publisher
Transcription
Mr. E. E. Bennett _ 2 _ February 17, 1949 further holds that you are then entitled to bring in an expert, who having determined all of the facts and giving them due weight, arrives at a conclusion with respect to the final answer which is the just compensation which will keep the con- demnee whole. All the foregoing is for the purpose of suggesting that you use the simple term "just compensation", and thus avoid the concepts that arise when you attempt to segregate value and damages. In California they have been rather careful to prevent a utility claiming value for its franchises. In fact I believe that all certificates of convenience and necessity secured by us in California expressly provide that in any condemnation we shall not claim more than the actual out of pocket expenditures for the franchise. I wonder if in Nevada it is possible to have an indeterminate or long term franchise which is in the nature of an exclusive right to serve. Franchises are definitely contracts, and you will find that the City of Los Angeles attempted to condemn our franchise rights. We argued that since the City itself did not need a franchise, that, therefore, they had no right to condemn the franchise right. I believe that valuation experts ahd the courts recognized in certain cases substantial value for franchises that have a substantial life. I would suggest that to determine that a finding by the y Commission has the effect of a "special verdict" would be unfortunate. It is my recollection that if a verdict is brought in and there is any evidence to support it, that a reviewing court cannot change the verdict. I would suggest that there be a specification that a trial court in the event it shall determine that the condemnor has the legal right to take, which is not a matter ever submitted to the jury, it shall then be required to insert in its judgment the value fixed by the Commission, and that on appeal the Appelate Court shall have the right to review the evidence submitted the court. to the Commission and to On the other hand, it may be that under present Nevada law there is some method for the Supreme Court to review the decision of the Commission before it is final in the trial court.