364 [263 ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. Jesse BELT et ux 77-310 565 S.W. 2d 28 Opinion delivered May 1, 1978 (In Banc) APPEAL & ERROR - IDENTICAL TESTIMONY PRESENTED ON RETRIAL - LAW OF THE CASE GOVERNS. - Where a trial court permitted certain testimony of a landowner to be introduced in a condemnation proceeding, over the objection of the condemnor, but the condemnor did not complain of the court's ruling on appeal, the law of the case precludes the condemnor from raising the issue on appeal of a retrial of the case in which the identical testimony was admitted by the trial court. Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, David Partain, Judge; affirmed. Thomas B. Keys and Philip .W. Gowen, for appellant. Lonnie C. Turner and 1. H. Evans, of Warren & Smith, for appellees. CONLEY BYRD, Justice. The first trial in this eminent domain action resulted in a jury verdict for $10,000. We reversed the judgment entered thereon because the trial court refused to permit the condemnor to cross examine the landowner with reference to an eight (8) acre sale for $35,000 that occurred five years after the taking, Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Belt, 260 Ark. 1, 537 S.W. 2d 378 (1976). Upon the trial that is now before us the jury returned a verdict of $11,- 000. The condemnor now alleges as ground for reversal that the trial court erred in not striking the testimony of the landowner because of its speculative nature. The record shows that the landowner testified to damages of $15,000 and that his expert appraisal witness testified to damages of $12,000. Appellant does not question the value given by the expert witness. The record in the previous appeal shows that the trial court permitted the identical testimony of the landowner to
ARK. I 365 be introduced over the objection of appellant but that appellant did not complain of the court's ruling on that appeal. It follows that the law of the case precludes appellant from raising the issue now, Woodward v. Blythe, Adm'x, 249 Ark. 793, 462 S.W. 2d 205 (1971). Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.