As I read the case, the juror awarded damages for a lot more than the
reduction in the homeowner's property value. Invasion of privacy,
attorney's fees, etc.
No, the jurors said that the State of Califronia failed to prove its case;
they didn't say OJ was not guilty. The State screwed up the outcome, not
the jury.
Alan, W3BV
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Castro <ronc@sonic.net>
To: towertalk@contesting.com <towertalk@contesting.com>
To: <towertalk@contesting.com>
Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 11:58 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] A Sad Precedent
>
>Alan D. Gray wrote:
>
>
>> Instigators?...Guess they had no right to complain if the cell tower
lowered
>> their property value? A big corporation profits while they lose...seems
>
>Excuse me, but I seem to get the jist that the $1,200,000 award was just
>10% of the property value. It's hard to imagine anybody with a $12
>million dollar home that didn't get it by "big corperate profits"!
>
>What's even more guiling is that these rich people probably have cell
>phone, pagers etc., and so do their lawyers, their gardners, servents,
>maids, etc.
>> fair, right? ,,,and after all, it wasn't next to your house!
>
>That's just the point! That's where they end up so the rich can have
>their view, and there cell phones/ If they don't want to see towers,
>they could buy the property (everything is for sale) or move someplace
>else.
>
>> Jurors? .... Guess they knew less about this whole mess than we do; after
>
>Just remember, jurors let OJ go scott free!
>
>Ron N6AHA
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
>Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|