High court stands by ruling in Convention Center case

Tuesday, Oct. 5, 1999 | 10:48 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Monday stood by its decision in April to void a $9 million judgment awarded to owners of two parcels condemned by Clark County for expansion of the Las Vegas Convention Center.

The court denied the petition for a rehearing filed by an attorney for Briant Buckwalter, John R. Reese and several others who owned land across Desert Inn Road from the convention center.

The case will now go to the court of District Judge Mark Denton for a new trial.

In the court's order Monday, Justice Cliff Young sharply criticized attorney Laura Wightman FitzSimmons, saying she made "reckless accusations" in her petition asking for the court to reconsider the case. At the April 1996 trial experts for the landowners pegged the "highest price" at between $9 million and $9.7 million on grounds its best use would be as a hotel-casino across the street from the convention center.

Appraisers for Clark County suggested the "most probable price" of the property, which contained apartment units, was $4.5 million. They claimed the parcel was too small for a casino and its best use was probably a retail-restaurant facility.

The court in the original decision said former District Judge Don Chairez "blatantly" ignored the law when he gave an instruction to the jury that it must consider the fair market value of the property as the "highest price" for the land.

The decision, written by Chief Justice Bob Rose, said Chairez was wrong when he declared unconstitutional the state law setting the "most probable price" standard. Rose said that wrongful evaluation costs taxpayers $5 million.

FitzSimmons, in her petition for a rehearing, said Chairez and the jury followed the law at the time as set forth in two Supreme Court decisions in considering the value of the property at the highest and best use. She criticized Rose repeatedly in her petition and noted she had tried to get him disqualified earlier in the case because of his "intense, repeatedly expressed personal bias" against her.

The court previously denied that disqualification motion in a 3-2 order.

FitzSimmons said Rose acted as a "consultant to the Legislature" in crafting a new condemnation valuation law and that he should step aside. She said every jurisdiction in the United States has ruled that landowners are entitled to compensation for their property based on its highest and best use. Yet the Nevada court has created a new phase, "Most probable use," she complained.

In denying the petition the court said the valuation of condemned property "must reflect 'the most probable price' based upon factors affecting market value including the taken parcel's 'highest and best' use."

Young scolded FitzSimmons for raising issues already decided, such as the disqualification of Rose. He said she caused "the expenditure of valuable and limited judicial resources without justification."