City brought action against landowner for approval of exercise of eminent domain.
The County Court approved the exercise. Landowner appealed.
The Supreme Court held that:
- There was no evidence that city’s determination of public necessity was result of fraud or abuse of discretion, and
- Evidence was sufficient to support finding of a public use.
There was no evidence that city’s determination of public necessity, as would support exercise of eminent domain to take landowner’s property which formed part of urban-renewal area, was result of fraud or abuse of discretion.
Evidence was sufficient to support finding of a public use, as would support city’s exercise of eminent domain to take landowner’s property, where city had designated area an urban-renewal area pursuant to urban-renewal plan, and parcel at issue was included because of its historic significance.