General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. LaSalle Realty Corp.
Indiana Appellate Court
218 N.E.2d 141 (1966)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
LaSalle Realty Corp. (LaSalle) (plaintiff) owned a building. LaSalle leased the roof of the building to General Outdoor Advertising Co. (General) (defendant), which then put up a large advertising sign on the roof. The sign damaged the building, and LaSalle sued General for damages. LaSalle demolished the building rather than repairing it. LaSalle submitted evidence during trial that it would have cost $20,000 to $25,000 to restore the building, and LaSalle had bought the building for $65,000 in 1952. The case was tried without a jury, and the trial court found in favor of LaSalle, awarding LaSalle $8,500 in damages. General moved for a new trial, arguing that the damages award was not supported by sufficient evidence. The trial court denied General’s motion, and General appealed, arguing that because LaSalle did not repair the building, the repair costs could not be used as evidence of damages. General also argued that because repair costs could not be used, the measure of damages could only be the market value of the building before the damage less the market value of the building after the damage. General argued that because LaSalle did not submit any evidence of either market value, the damages award was not supported by the evidence.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.