## Facts

- The Arkansas State Highway Commission condemned 4.44 acres of Harold and Bertha Schell’s 40-acre poultry farm for a highway relocation project.
- The taking split the property into a 27.58-acre west residual and a 7.98-acre east residual; the east residual became landlocked due to controlled-access features.
- After construction, the easternmost poultry house would be approximately 250–270 feet from the nearest traffic lane.
- At trial, the landowners presented valuation evidence of $61,000 (expert Mark Risk) and $75,000 (Bertha Schell).
- The Commission presented valuation evidence of $20,600 (Larry Dupree) and $25,800 (Neil Palmer).
- Palmer, a real-estate appraiser originally retained by the Commission, was called as a witness by the landowners.
- The trial court restricted the Commission’s cross-examination of Palmer about how he formed his valuation opinion, including details of his investigation and the substance of information he obtained from others.
- The jury awarded the landowners $50,000 in just compensation, and judgment was entered on the verdict.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by preventing the Commission from cross-examining expert appraiser Neil Palmer about the basis for his valuation opinion.
2. Whether record-reconstruction and new-trial issues related to an incomplete transcript warranted appellate relief.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was reversible error to limit cross-examination aimed at exposing the grounds and information underlying Palmer’s expert opinion.
- The court declined to address the record-reconstruction and related new-trial arguments because the evidentiary error required retrial and the transcript problem was unlikely to recur.

## Legal Principles

- A party is entitled to meaningful cross-examination of an expert witness concerning the basis of the expert’s opinion, including data, assumptions, investigation, and sources relied upon.
- In condemnation valuation disputes, the ability to test the foundation of competing appraisal opinions is central to the fact-finder’s evaluation of weight and credibility.
- Improper restriction of cross-examination into an expert’s foundational basis may constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal and a new trial.

## Conclusion

Because the valuation verdict depended in part on expert opinion evidence, the trial court’s restriction of cross-examination into the foundation of the appraiser’s opinion was prejudicial and required reversal and remand for a new trial.


Arkansas State Highway Comm’n v. Schell, 683 S.W.2d 618 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985)