U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1967

Cyrill Pokladnik and Wife, Justine Pokladnik v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 2, 1967 · Bell, Godbold, Dyer

378 F.2d 59; 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 6138 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

W. M. Taylor, Jr., H. P. Kucera, Strasburger, Price, Kelton, Miller & Martin, Dallas, Tex., for appellants., Edwin L. Weisl, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert P. Marquis, Edmund B. Clark, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Melvin M. Diggs, U. S. Atty., Claude D. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Worth, Tex., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

United States v. O. C. Trout, Jr. And Wife, Dora S. Trout, O. C. Trout, Jr. And Wife, Dora S. Trout v. United States (5th Cir. 1967)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The United States condemned 296 acres of a 383 acre tract owned by appellants to be used as a reservoir and for recreational purposes.

On this appeal the Pokladnik’s principal contention is that the increase in value of a portion of the remainder of their tract was not a special and direct benefit to the tract and should not have been deducted from their compensation or, in the alternative, if the increase m value was a special and direct benefit it was too speculative to legitimately be taken into account.

This contention has been effectively foreclosed by United States v. 2,477.79 Acres of Land, etc., in Bell County, 5 Cir., 1958, 259 F.2d 23, where this Court considered an almost identical contention.

We have considered the other contentions of appellants and find them to be without merit.

The judgment is

Affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.