Real estate appraiser
Expert class library · Bankruptcy and valuation · Either side
Values real property, or the loss in value caused by a taking or easement, by applying the sales comparison, income capitalization, and cost approaches to the property at its highest and best use. Courts check that the chosen highest and best use is reasonably probable and that the comparable sales and adjustments rest on actual market evidence rather than speculation.
What this expert is retained to answer
- What was the fair market value of the property on the valuation date?
- What is the property's highest and best use, and is that use legally permissible, physically possible, and reasonably probable in the near future?
- Which sales are truly comparable, and what adjustments are needed for size, location, access, and encumbrances?
- How much did the easement or taking reduce the value of the remaining property?
- Were the sales relied on arm's length transactions that reflect the market?
Methods
- Sales comparison approach
- Income capitalization approach
- Cost approach
- Highest and best use analysis
How the testimony is attacked
- Speculative highest and best use. Condemnors argue that the valuation assumes a use the property could not reasonably achieve, such as commercial development on agricultural land without any showing of rezoning or market demand. In United States ex rel. TVA v. 1.72 Acres the Sixth Circuit affirmed exclusion of the landowner's expert because his hotel-based opinion lacked support for rezoning or demand.
- Comparable sales that are not comparable. Opponents argue the sales used differ in size, use, or encumbrance from the subject property. In Mountain Valley Pipeline v. 0.32 Acres the Fourth Circuit held that the degree of comparability is generally a question of weight for the factfinder, not a ground to exclude the report.
- Court resolving factual disputes at the admissibility stage. Appraisers' proponents argue that alleged factual errors in the report do not make the methodology unreliable. The Mountain Valley Pipeline court vacated an exclusion because the district court applied a heightened gatekeeping standard in condemnation cases and decided contested facts instead of testing the method.
- Non-arm's length or unidentified flawed sales. Landowners attack appraisals that use estate sales, owner-financed sales, or other atypical transactions. In United States v. An Easement Over 1.58 Acres the court refused to exclude the condemnor's appraiser because the landowner did not identify any specific flawed sale and could address the point on cross-examination.
- Considering impermissible effects. Opponents point to reasoning that counts effects the law excludes, such as the impact of takings on neighboring properties. The Mountain Valley Pipeline court agreed that this one consideration should be barred but held that a single such sentence did not make the whole appraisal unreliable.
What the public record shows
A deliberately narrow CourtListener search, appraiser AND "comparable sales" AND "highest and best use" AND (Daubert OR "Rule 702"), returned 23 opinions filed since 2015, as of October 2, 2026; broader searches return more. Three that show how courts handle this class of testimony:
| Outcome | Case | Court | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excluded | United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. 1.72 Acres of Land821 F.3d 742 | 6th Cir. 2016 | The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Rule 702 exclusion of the landowner's valuation expert because his opinion that a power line destroyed the land's value for a hotel rested on a speculative highest and best use with no support for rezoning or market demand. |
| Exclusion reversed | Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC v. 0.32 Acres of Land127 F.4th 437 | 4th Cir. 2025 | The Fourth Circuit vacated the exclusion of the landowner's appraisal report because the district court applied a heightened gatekeeping standard and resolved factual disputes, such as the comparability of sales, that go to weight rather than admissibility. |
| Admitted | United States v. An Easement & Right-Of-Way Over 1.58 Acres of Land343 F. Supp. 3d 1321 | N.D. Ga. 2018 | The court refused to bar the condemnor's appraiser from relying on challenged comparable sales, treating the motion as an untimely Daubert challenge that failed to identify any noncomparable or non-arm's length sale and leaving the issues for cross-examination. |
Each case links to the free opinion text on CourtListener.
Under amended Rule 702
Since December 1, 2023, Rule 702 says expressly that the party offering an expert must show the court it is more likely than not that the testimony meets each requirement: that it rests on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and reflects a reliable application of those methods to the case. Questions about the basis of an opinion are no longer automatically matters of weight for the jury. For how the circuits have applied the amendment, see the Rule 702 tracker, which follows each court of appeals; for what that means for preparing or attacking this class of expert, see the guide on amended Rule 702.
Related classes
Guides
Simulating this class on a matter
Supreme Mind simulates a class of expert, never a named individual, on your fact pattern and returns the likely opinion, the ranked cross-examination weaknesses, the Rule 702 attack surface and what it means for settlement. Read how it works, or book a demo.
Last reviewed October 2, 2026. How this page is built: rulings are found by searching court opinions on CourtListener, and each one is read in the opinion before it is summarised here; outcomes are labelled by what the court did with the expert's testimony. No individual expert is named. This page summarises public decisions for orientation and is not legal advice; read the opinion before relying on any ruling.