Cited by

See, (A landowner who purchased property on the advice of others, with no personal investigation, should have been allowed to testify as to his opinion of the property’s value.); United Cal.

–87 (App. 1992) (“[A]n error is harmless if there is no reasonable probability the verdict might have been different.” (citation omitted)).

“Prejudice will not be presumed but must be evident from the record.”

“In Arizona, a property owner may always testify about the value of his or her property because ‘[a]n owner of property has, by definition, knowledge of the components of value that are useful in ascertaining value.’” Tanno, 245 Ariz. at 493, ¶ 18 ().

(“[A]n error is harmless if there is no reasonable probability the verdict might have been different.”); Brown, 194 Ariz. at 88, ¶ 7 (“The improper admission of evidence is not reversible error if the jury would have reached the same verdict without the evidence.”).

But “an owner of property is always competent to testify as to the value of 7 HOVANNISIAN v. HOVANNISIAN Decision of the Court his property.” (citation omitted).

Prejudice from the erroneous exclusion of evidence “will not be presumed but must be evident from the record.”

Town of Paradise Valley v. Laughlin , , 486, , 111(App. 1992) (alteration in Laughlin ) (quoting United Cal.

“Prejudice will not be presumed but must be evident from the record.” (citation omitted).

See, 490 , 115 (App.1992) (vacating and remanding due to “cumulative effect of the court’s error,” although preclusion of defendant’s testimony alone would not warrant new trial); , (although new trial required because of inco

Although a property owner can testify to the value of his property, Plaintiff’s statement did not establish more than a scintilla of evidence of any significant harm.

See, , (landowners are competent to testify about property values and an explanation of the method used to make this determination goes to the weight and not to the admissibility of such testimony).

¶ 39 Indeed, , we held that the superior court improperly prohibited the property owner from testifying about the value of his property in a condemnation action.

See, , (temporary construction easement); , (permanent easement for roadway purposes characterized by court as fee simple interest taken in connection with right of way); , (condemnation of six billboards erected purs

(concluding that even if errors standing alone do not warrant a new trial, the cumulative effect of the errors could deprive the litigant of a fair trial).