Preview
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR LINCOLN COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
FILED
AUG 0 3 2029
CINDY. KiRBy,
LINCOLN Conk COURT CLERK.
INTY, OKLAHOM,
. ‘A
WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC
COOPERATIVE, INC., a Corporation,
Plaintiff,
Case No. CS-17-84
Vv.
MATTIE SUE KINNETT, as Trustee of The
Mattie Sue Kinnett Living Trust dated February
28, 2014; SHANE KINNETT, as tenant; and
KATHY SHERMAN, in her capacity as
TREASURER OF LINCOLN COUNTY,
Oklahoma, and THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF LINCOLN COUNTY,
Oklahoma,
SSS SSS SS ES SSeS SY
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PERMIT JURY TO
VIEW THE PROPERTY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“WFEC”), by
and through its counsel, Stratton Taylor and Jacob Daniel of the law firm Taylor, Foster, Mallett,
Downs, Ramsey, & Russell, P.C. and hereby moves the Court for an Order to Permit the Jury to
View the Property, hereby states as follows:
INTRODUCTION
This is an action by the Plaintiff to condemn an easement across the Defendants property
for the purpose of constructing an electric transmission line. It is requested that the jury be
permitted, under statutory authority, to view the subject property.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY
Section 579 of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes provides authority for the viewing of
property by a jury:Whenever, in the opinion of the court, it is proper for the jury to have a view
of the property which is the subject of the litigation, or of the place in which
any material fact occurred, it may order, them to be conducted, in a body,
under the charge of an officer, to the place, which shall be shown to them
by some person appointed by the court for that purpose.
12 O.S. § 579.
Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain states:
A view of the subject property from which a taking has occurred is often
essential for a thorough understanding of the case by the fact-finding body
responsible for making the final award of compensation due to the owner.
Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain, § 18.08; see also, City of McAlester v. Delciello, 412
P.2d 623, 626 (Okla. 1966) (discrepancies reflected in testimony “provided ample reason for the
trial court's granting defendants' request for the jury to view the property”).
In this case, it is clear that the parties hold significantly different opinions on the value of
the land taken and the impact to the remainder. Thus, it is important for the jury to view the
property because a first-person viewing of the property will allow the jurors to ascertain the
appearance of the property themselves. For these reasons, a view of the subject property by the
jury will assist their deliberations. A visit to the subject property is beneficial because jurors can
see how the transmission line looks in real life, instead of just viewing it from a photograph. One
can see a photograph of Yosemite, but no one would argue seeing a photograph is equivalent to
viewing it in person. Though much less majestic of a scene, the same principle applies here.
Plaintiff would ask the Court to note it has done this in over twenty different courts. The
method normally used is for the Plaintiff to provide the transportation in SUV’s with the court
and/or court personnel riding in the vehicles. The jury does not know who paid for the SUV’s
which are leased from a third party. The attorneys and litigants are not allowed to speak or answerquestions from jurors unless the court directs that to occur. Jurors like being able to see the property
in question so they can make an informed decision. Such site visits have been the norm in every
case this firm has been involved in as shown in the Order attached. See Order [Ex. 1]. The most
recent case was Western Farmers Elec. Coop. v. Estate of Harold Burdine, McIntosh County Case
CV-16-40.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays the Court grant its Motion and for such other and further
relief as the Court deems just.
Respectfully,
TON TAYLOR, OBA # 10142
T RUSSELL, OBA # 19209
OB R. DANIEL, OBA #32760
”AYLOR, FOSTER, MALLETT, DOWNS,
MSEY & RUSSELL
400 West Fourth Street | P.O. Box 309
Claremore, OK 74018
918-343-4100 | 918-343-4900 fax
jdaniel@soonerlaw.com
Attorneys for PlaintiffCERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was on
the 3 day of _August _, 2020 mailed by X__USS. Mail, Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested; faxed, delivered, e-mailed to the following:
Trae Gray, OBA # 21196
LandownerFirm, PLLC
37500 State Hwy 31
Coalgate, Oklahoma 74538
Telephone: (888) 439-4729
Facsimile: (888) 789-4729
Attorneys for Defendants,
Mattie Sue Kinnett, as Trustee of the
Mattie Sue Kinnett Living Trust Dated
February 28, 2014 and Shane Kinnett, as
tenant
7 JACOB R. DANIELIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAWNEE COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC
COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs,
HOMER M. CAIN and GINGER M. CAIN,
husband and wife as joint tenants and not as
tenants in common, with rights of survivorship;
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PAWNEE COUNTY, a body corporate and
politic, and CARRIE TATUM, PAWNEE
COUNTY TREASURER,
Defendants,
ORDE ARDING
+
SS SS Se ewer
Case No, CV-11-29
FILED
District Court
pAWNEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
OCT O11 2014
NANET DALLAS, Court Clerk
BY.
S PI ING Mi IS
NOW on this ¢ day of October 2014, the Plaintiff's pending motions came on for
consideration before the undersigned Judge of the District Court of Pawnee County, Having
reviewed the pleadings and briefs and heard argument of counsel, the Court now makes the
following findings:
1 Plaintiffs Motion To Instruct The Jury That The Defendant Landowners Carry The
Burden Of Proving Their Damages In An Eminent Domain Case With Brief In Support: The
Court finds that this AD should be and is hereby
Loon °. AP
denied,
denied in part and granted in part, Specifically:
EXHIBIT
1a
TT2. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Prevent Any Testimony At Trial Which Refers To,
References, Or In Any Manner States The Amount Of The Award Made By The Court Appointed
Commissioners With Brief In Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
sustained. i
denied,
denied in part and granted in part, Specifically:
3. Motion In Limine And Brief In Support To Prevent Admission Of Evidence Of The
Value Of The Subject Property According To The Development Approach: The Court finds that
this Motion should be and is hereby
Xk sustained.
denied,
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
4, Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Prevent The Defendants From Testifying As To
Their Beliefs In The Possible Danger Of Electromagnetic Fields: The Court finds that this Motion
should be and is hereby
sustained, 0. ©
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
5. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Future Damages And Brief In
Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be aiid is hereby
Yin
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:6. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence As To The Value Of Trees As A
Separate And Distinct Item From The Value Of The Property Which Is The Subject Matter Of This
Case: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
YX sustained.
denied,
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
2 Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude Construction Related Photographs With
Brief In Support: i i finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
g
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
Qa
Wr ZA
8. Plaintiff's Motion That IisAExpert Witness Not Be Subject To Rule Of
Sequestration: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
_Y_ sustained.
___ denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
9. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude All Evidence And Testimony Regarding
- Thé Routing Of Plaintif’s Electric Transmission Line With Brief In Support: The Court finds thet
this Motion md and is hereby
_}_ sustained. i N
denied,
denied in part and granted in part, Specifically:10, Plaintiff's Motion In Limine Regarding Source Of Funds With Brief In Support:
The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
xX sustained,
____ denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
ll. Plaintiff's Motion To Permit Jury To View The Property And Brief In Support:
va Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
XX sustained, . Aji
denied,
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
12. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude All Matters Regarding Its Right To
Condemn The Subject Property And Brief In Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be
and is hereby
Xx sustained. Ay
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: _
13, Motion in Limine and Brief in Support to Prevent Admission of Testimony and Exhibits
of Teresa Burk, The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
___ sustained. Q
_ KX aeniea, NS
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:14, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Placement of Additional Poles within the
Easement with Brief in Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
: denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
15, Plaintiff"s Motion in Limine to Prevent the Defendant Ginger Cain from Testifying as
to her Beliefs in the Possible Danger of Electromagnetic Fields: The Court finds that this Motion
should be and is hereby .
Y sustained. ai . ?
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
16, Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Involuntary Sales and Brief in Support:
The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
Ke sated iH] \
denied in part and granted in part, Specifically:
17. Motion in Linine to Prevent the Introduction of Evidence of Trees or Other Debris
Left on the Property: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
Kswnivea A7|
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:18. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Introduction of Evidence Regarding Loss of Lots:
The Court finds that this “sn should be and is hereby
VK custained. °. 1
denied,
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
19. Motion in Limine to Exclude Landowner Testimony Regarding Future Speculative
Uses of the Subject Property:: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
___ sustained,
____ denied.
A denied in part and granted in part, Specifically: Spewlidrve use is allowed
—Speculadive. Value is nat allowed , ers. ©
20. Motion in Limine with Brief in Support to Exclude Defendants’ Testimony Regarding
the Project's Impact on ye The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
\ :
sustained. p.m .
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
“91. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Introduction of Hearsay Evidence: The Court finds
that this Motion should be and is hereby
X sustained, Y
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:22. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Introduction of Evidence of Unaccepted Offers to
Purchase the Property: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
KL sustained. I N
denied,
denied in part and granted in part, Specifically:
23. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Defendants from Testifying as to Dangers and
Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is
ee :
sustained,
denied.
___ denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
24. Plaintiff's Motion To Strike and/or Preclude Witness Testimony at Trial for Failure to
Cooperate in Discovery: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby
sustained.
denied,
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
owt _).tt-P
25. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Expert Witness Testimony and Reports at Trial for
Failure to Cooperate in Discovery and Supplement: The Court finds that this Motion should be
and is hereby
sustained.
denied.
denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:
Aaot PM?IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that
aforementioned pending Motions filed by the Plaintiff are hereby bound as ordered above.
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT
cor ate fh A |
Stratton Taylor, OBA # 10142 Robert Nichols, OBA eL
Clint Russell, OBA # 19209 Attomey at Law
C. Eric Pfanstiel, OBA # 16712 400 Petroleum Club le,
TAYLOR, FOSTER, MALLETT, 601 South Boulder "Avenue
DOWNS & RAMSEY Tulsa OK 74119
400 West Fourth Street Attorney for Defendants
P.O, Box 309
Claremore, OK 74018
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Preview
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR LINCOLN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA FILED AUG 0 3 2029 CINDY. KiRBy, LINCOLN Conk COURT CLERK. INTY, OKLAHOM, . ‘A WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., a Corporation, Plaintiff, Case No. CS-17-84 Vv. MATTIE SUE KINNETT, as Trustee of The Mattie Sue Kinnett Living Trust dated February 28, 2014; SHANE KINNETT, as tenant; and KATHY SHERMAN, in her capacity as TREASURER OF LINCOLN COUNTY, Oklahoma, and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LINCOLN COUNTY, Oklahoma, SSS SSS SS ES SSeS SY Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PERMIT JURY TO VIEW THE PROPERTY AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, Inc. (“WFEC”), by and through its counsel, Stratton Taylor and Jacob Daniel of the law firm Taylor, Foster, Mallett, Downs, Ramsey, & Russell, P.C. and hereby moves the Court for an Order to Permit the Jury to View the Property, hereby states as follows: INTRODUCTION This is an action by the Plaintiff to condemn an easement across the Defendants property for the purpose of constructing an electric transmission line. It is requested that the jury be permitted, under statutory authority, to view the subject property. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITY Section 579 of Title 12 of the Oklahoma Statutes provides authority for the viewing of property by a jury:Whenever, in the opinion of the court, it is proper for the jury to have a view of the property which is the subject of the litigation, or of the place in which any material fact occurred, it may order, them to be conducted, in a body, under the charge of an officer, to the place, which shall be shown to them by some person appointed by the court for that purpose. 12 O.S. § 579. Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain states: A view of the subject property from which a taking has occurred is often essential for a thorough understanding of the case by the fact-finding body responsible for making the final award of compensation due to the owner. Nichols, Law of Eminent Domain, § 18.08; see also, City of McAlester v. Delciello, 412 P.2d 623, 626 (Okla. 1966) (discrepancies reflected in testimony “provided ample reason for the trial court's granting defendants' request for the jury to view the property”). In this case, it is clear that the parties hold significantly different opinions on the value of the land taken and the impact to the remainder. Thus, it is important for the jury to view the property because a first-person viewing of the property will allow the jurors to ascertain the appearance of the property themselves. For these reasons, a view of the subject property by the jury will assist their deliberations. A visit to the subject property is beneficial because jurors can see how the transmission line looks in real life, instead of just viewing it from a photograph. One can see a photograph of Yosemite, but no one would argue seeing a photograph is equivalent to viewing it in person. Though much less majestic of a scene, the same principle applies here. Plaintiff would ask the Court to note it has done this in over twenty different courts. The method normally used is for the Plaintiff to provide the transportation in SUV’s with the court and/or court personnel riding in the vehicles. The jury does not know who paid for the SUV’s which are leased from a third party. The attorneys and litigants are not allowed to speak or answerquestions from jurors unless the court directs that to occur. Jurors like being able to see the property in question so they can make an informed decision. Such site visits have been the norm in every case this firm has been involved in as shown in the Order attached. See Order [Ex. 1]. The most recent case was Western Farmers Elec. Coop. v. Estate of Harold Burdine, McIntosh County Case CV-16-40. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays the Court grant its Motion and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just. Respectfully, TON TAYLOR, OBA # 10142 T RUSSELL, OBA # 19209 OB R. DANIEL, OBA #32760 ”AYLOR, FOSTER, MALLETT, DOWNS, MSEY & RUSSELL 400 West Fourth Street | P.O. Box 309 Claremore, OK 74018 918-343-4100 | 918-343-4900 fax jdaniel@soonerlaw.com Attorneys for PlaintiffCERTIFICATE OF MAILING This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was on the 3 day of _August _, 2020 mailed by X__USS. Mail, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested; faxed, delivered, e-mailed to the following: Trae Gray, OBA # 21196 LandownerFirm, PLLC 37500 State Hwy 31 Coalgate, Oklahoma 74538 Telephone: (888) 439-4729 Facsimile: (888) 789-4729 Attorneys for Defendants, Mattie Sue Kinnett, as Trustee of the Mattie Sue Kinnett Living Trust Dated February 28, 2014 and Shane Kinnett, as tenant 7 JACOB R. DANIELIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAWNEE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, an Oklahoma corporation, Plaintiff, vs, HOMER M. CAIN and GINGER M. CAIN, husband and wife as joint tenants and not as tenants in common, with rights of survivorship; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PAWNEE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic, and CARRIE TATUM, PAWNEE COUNTY TREASURER, Defendants, ORDE ARDING + SS SS Se ewer Case No, CV-11-29 FILED District Court pAWNEE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA OCT O11 2014 NANET DALLAS, Court Clerk BY. S PI ING Mi IS NOW on this ¢ day of October 2014, the Plaintiff's pending motions came on for consideration before the undersigned Judge of the District Court of Pawnee County, Having reviewed the pleadings and briefs and heard argument of counsel, the Court now makes the following findings: 1 Plaintiffs Motion To Instruct The Jury That The Defendant Landowners Carry The Burden Of Proving Their Damages In An Eminent Domain Case With Brief In Support: The Court finds that this AD should be and is hereby Loon °. AP denied, denied in part and granted in part, Specifically: EXHIBIT 1a TT2. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Prevent Any Testimony At Trial Which Refers To, References, Or In Any Manner States The Amount Of The Award Made By The Court Appointed Commissioners With Brief In Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby sustained. i denied, denied in part and granted in part, Specifically: 3. Motion In Limine And Brief In Support To Prevent Admission Of Evidence Of The Value Of The Subject Property According To The Development Approach: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby Xk sustained. denied, denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 4, Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Prevent The Defendants From Testifying As To Their Beliefs In The Possible Danger Of Electromagnetic Fields: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby sustained, 0. © denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 5. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude Evidence Of Future Damages And Brief In Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be aiid is hereby Yin denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:6. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Preclude Evidence As To The Value Of Trees As A Separate And Distinct Item From The Value Of The Property Which Is The Subject Matter Of This Case: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby YX sustained. denied, denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 2 Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude Construction Related Photographs With Brief In Support: i i finds that this Motion should be and is hereby g denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: Qa Wr ZA 8. Plaintiff's Motion That IisAExpert Witness Not Be Subject To Rule Of Sequestration: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby _Y_ sustained. ___ denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 9. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude All Evidence And Testimony Regarding - Thé Routing Of Plaintif’s Electric Transmission Line With Brief In Support: The Court finds thet this Motion md and is hereby _}_ sustained. i N denied, denied in part and granted in part, Specifically:10, Plaintiff's Motion In Limine Regarding Source Of Funds With Brief In Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby xX sustained, ____ denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: ll. Plaintiff's Motion To Permit Jury To View The Property And Brief In Support: va Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby XX sustained, . Aji denied, denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 12. Plaintiff's Motion In Limine To Exclude All Matters Regarding Its Right To Condemn The Subject Property And Brief In Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby Xx sustained. Ay denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: _ 13, Motion in Limine and Brief in Support to Prevent Admission of Testimony and Exhibits of Teresa Burk, The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby ___ sustained. Q _ KX aeniea, NS denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:14, Plaintiff's Motion in Limine Regarding Placement of Additional Poles within the Easement with Brief in Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby : denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 15, Plaintiff"s Motion in Limine to Prevent the Defendant Ginger Cain from Testifying as to her Beliefs in the Possible Danger of Electromagnetic Fields: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby . Y sustained. ai . ? denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 16, Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Involuntary Sales and Brief in Support: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby Ke sated iH] \ denied in part and granted in part, Specifically: 17. Motion in Linine to Prevent the Introduction of Evidence of Trees or Other Debris Left on the Property: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby Kswnivea A7| denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:18. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Introduction of Evidence Regarding Loss of Lots: The Court finds that this “sn should be and is hereby VK custained. °. 1 denied, denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 19. Motion in Limine to Exclude Landowner Testimony Regarding Future Speculative Uses of the Subject Property:: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby ___ sustained, ____ denied. A denied in part and granted in part, Specifically: Spewlidrve use is allowed —Speculadive. Value is nat allowed , ers. © 20. Motion in Limine with Brief in Support to Exclude Defendants’ Testimony Regarding the Project's Impact on ye The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby \ : sustained. p.m . denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: “91. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Introduction of Hearsay Evidence: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby X sustained, Y denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically:22. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Introduction of Evidence of Unaccepted Offers to Purchase the Property: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby KL sustained. I N denied, denied in part and granted in part, Specifically: 23. Motion in Limine to Prevent the Defendants from Testifying as to Dangers and Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is ee : sustained, denied. ___ denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: 24. Plaintiff's Motion To Strike and/or Preclude Witness Testimony at Trial for Failure to Cooperate in Discovery: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby sustained. denied, denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: owt _).tt-P 25. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Expert Witness Testimony and Reports at Trial for Failure to Cooperate in Discovery and Supplement: The Court finds that this Motion should be and is hereby sustained. denied. denied in part and granted in part. Specifically: Aaot PM?IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that aforementioned pending Motions filed by the Plaintiff are hereby bound as ordered above. JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT cor ate fh A | Stratton Taylor, OBA # 10142 Robert Nichols, OBA eL Clint Russell, OBA # 19209 Attomey at Law C. Eric Pfanstiel, OBA # 16712 400 Petroleum Club le, TAYLOR, FOSTER, MALLETT, 601 South Boulder "Avenue DOWNS & RAMSEY Tulsa OK 74119 400 West Fourth Street Attorney for Defendants P.O, Box 309 Claremore, OK 74018 Attorneys for Plaintiff