Laserfiche WebLink
513 <br />. • • <br />1 It's true that the county apparently vigorously resisted the <br />2 claims of the plaintiff, some of which, in my view, at least <br />3 some--of course, I don't know the course of the negotiations <br />q between the parties--but the plaintiff had some legitimate <br />5 claims, and those were apparently vigorously resisted by the <br />6 county, but there again, I don't think there is any law against <br />~ that. That's, I realize that, particularly plaintiff Slovek <br />g had certain expectations the way a county would react, but in the <br />9 real life world, counties don't react that way when you are <br />l0 asking for money, so I did not find anything outrageous in the <br />11 conduct, nor did I find anything that they were negligently <br />12 risking infliction of mental distress on the plaintiff. As I say <br />13 if anybody wants any specific findings on that, I will make them. <br />14 Now, as to the damages, I continue to believe in this <br />15 particular case, the proper measure of damages is the difference <br />16 in the value of the property, for the most part--there will be <br />_17. a little variation in that--but the"value of the property prior <br />18 to the loss and the value of the property after the loss. Now, <br />19 there was evidence on both points. The two principal items of <br />I <br />20 evidence as to the value of the property before the loss, one <br />21 was the purchase price of the property, which was $64,500 at the <br />22 year end of 1977-76, and the estimate of one of the plaintiffs <br />23 of a value of $130,000 to $150,000. <br />24 I think I have perhaps judicial notice that that was <br />25 a period of rising real estate prices, but perhaps not rising as <br />I <br />