§ 1105. Evidence generally.
At the hearing before the viewers or at the trial in court on appeal:
(1) A qualified valuation expert may, on direct or cross-examination, state any or all
facts and data which the expert considered in arriving at an opinion, whether or not
the expert has personal knowledge of the facts and data, and a statement of the facts
and data and the sources of information shall be subject to impeachment and rebuttal.
(2) A qualified valuation expert may, on direct or cross-examination, testify in detail
as to the valuation of the property on a comparable market value, reproduction cost
or capitalization basis, which testimony may include, but shall not be limited to,
the following:
(i) The price and other terms of any sale or contract to sell the condemned property or
comparable property made within a reasonable time before or after the date of condemnation.
(ii) The rent reserved and other terms of any lease of the condemned property or comparable
property which was in effect within a reasonable time before or after the date of
condemnation.
(iii) The capitalization of the net rental or reasonable net rental value of the condemned
property, including reasonable net rental values customarily determined by a percentage
or other measurable portion of gross sales or gross income of a business which may
reasonably be conducted on the premises, as distinguished from the capitalized value
of the income or profits attributable to any business conducted on the premises of
the condemned property.
(iv) The value of the land together with the cost of replacing or reproducing the existing
improvements less depreciation or obsolescence.
(v) The cost of adjustments and alterations to any remaining property made necessary or
reasonably required by the condemnation.
(3) Either party may show the difference between the condition of the property and of
the immediate neighborhood at the time of condemnation and at the time of view, either
by the viewers or jury.
(4) The assessed valuations of property condemned shall not be admissible in evidence
for any purpose.
(5) A qualified valuation expert may testify that the expert has relied upon the written
report of another expert as to the cost of adjustments and alterations to any remaining
property made necessary or reasonably required by the condemnation, but only if a
copy of the written report has been furnished to the opposing party ten days in advance
of the trial.
(6) If otherwise qualified, a valuation expert shall not be disqualified by reason of
not having made sales of property or not having examined the condemned property prior
to the condemnation if the expert can show he has acquired knowledge of its condition
at the time of the condemnation.
Notes of Decisions
Lower Makefield Twp. v. Lands of Dalgewicz, 4 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 3× “” 26 Pa.C.S. § 1105 (Emphasis added). It is within the trial court’s discretion to admit an agreement of sale for the subject property, executed either before or after the taking, as evidence of a comparable sale where the court finds the agreement probative and relevant to…”
Vestmont Ltd. P'ship v. DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 6× “at 7-8, we may affirm on any grounds 24 We add that Vestmont’s argument seemingly runs afoul of 26 Pa.C.S. § 1105 and Dalgewicz. Initially, we acknowledge that the parties did not cite or otherwise discuss 26 Pa.”
G.D. Wolfe & M.O. Wolfe, h&w v. Reading Blue Mtn. & N. RR Co. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “11 RBMN contends that the Wolfes failed to meet their burden because the only evidence of the Properties’ value was as provided by the Tax Office, and pursuant to Section 1105(4) of the Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 1105(4), such evidence is explicitly inadmissible.”
Tank Car Corp. of Am. v. Springfield Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
· cites it 2× “See 26 Pa. C.S. § 1105(1) (“A qualified valuation expert may, on direct or cross-examination, state any or all facts and data which the expert considered in arriving at an opinion, whether or not the expert has personal knowledge of the facts and data, and a statement of the…”
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR (M.D. Penn. 2023).
· cites it 2× “91 See 26 Pa. C.S. § 1105(2)(iii) (providing that a valuation expert’s testimony may consider “[t]he capitalization of the net rental or reasonable net rental value of the condemned property, including reasonable net rental values customarily determined by a percentage or other…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(1) — 4 cases
Tank Car Corp. of Am. v. Springfield Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
“See 26 Pa. C.S. § 1105(1) (“A qualified valuation expert may, on direct or cross-examination, state any or all facts and data which the expert considered in arriving at an opinion, whether or not the expert has personal knowledge of the facts and data, and a statement of the…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(2) — 2 cases
Tank Car Corp. of Am. v. Springfield Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
“See 26 Pa. C.S. § 1105(1) (“A qualified valuation expert may, on direct or cross-examination, state any or all facts and data which the expert considered in arriving at an opinion, whether or not the expert has personal knowledge of the facts and data, and a statement of the…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(2)(i) — 2 cases
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(2)(iii) — 1 case
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR (M.D. Penn. 2023).
“91 See 26 Pa. C.S. § 1105(2)(iii) (providing that a valuation expert’s testimony may consider “[t]he capitalization of the net rental or reasonable net rental value of the condemned property, including reasonable net rental values customarily determined by a percentage or other…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(2)(v) — 1 case
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Co., LLC v. PERMANENT EASEMENTS FOR (M.D. Penn. 2023).
“91 See 26 Pa. C.S. § 1105(2)(iii) (providing that a valuation expert’s testimony may consider “[t]he capitalization of the net rental or reasonable net rental value of the condemned property, including reasonable net rental values customarily determined by a percentage or other…”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(4) — 1 case
G.D. Wolfe & M.O. Wolfe, h&w v. Reading Blue Mtn. & N. RR Co. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).
“11 RBMN contends that the Wolfes failed to meet their burden because the only evidence of the Properties’ value was as provided by the Tax Office, and pursuant to Section 1105(4) of the Code, 26 Pa.C.S. § 1105(4), such evidence is explicitly inadmissible.”
— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1105(l) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.