O'Donnell v. State
Rhode Island Supreme Court
370 A.2d 233 (1977)
- Written by Jennifer Flinn, JD
Facts
O’Donnell (plaintiff) owned a 34.69-acre farm in Rhode Island. In addition to a home and garage, the farm consisted of a cement-block structure, several outbuildings, and a well. O’Donnell was a chemist that performed fertilizer research, and he used a portion of the land on his farm as turf plots dedicated to this research. O’Donnell spent years preparing these turf plots for experimentation, which he testified was necessary to remove the excess nitrogen from the soil. By 1967, the turf plots were ready for experimentation, and from 1967 to 1971, O’Donnell manufactured various organic fertilizer compounds in the farm’s cement-block structure and applied these compounds to the turf plots. For these four years, data was collected. In 1971, the Director of Public Works condemned 2.3 acres of O’Donnell’s farm for the development of a state highway. The condemnation area included the well and 75 percent of the turf plots. O’Donnell filed suit seeking just compensation for the condemnation. The trial court awarded O’Donnell $101,100 in damages based on the value of the turf plots when ripe for experimentation, as they were in 1967, and on its determination that the cement-block structure would no longer be suitable for use. Both parties appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kelleher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
