that, “[a]s a rule, profits from commercial businesses on [appropriated] premises can not be shown.” The court noted, however, that an estimation of the value of appropriated property necessarily entails an inquiry into “its best and most valuable uses.” The court thus held that testimony to income from the rental of summer dwellings on appropriated property was admissible “to show the kinds of businesses to which the premises [were] adaptable.” Id. at 458-459, 44 O.O. at 421-422, 99 N.E.2d at 317. Evidence of lost future profits has also been held to be admissible for the limited purpose of rebuttal or impeachment, provided that the jury has been properly instructed as to the evidence’s limited admissibility. See Dorsey v. Donohoo (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 415, 615 N.E.2d 239 (<HOLDING>). Finally, evidence of business profits and
holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding that testimony by the owners expert to the value of trees on appropriated property was properly admitted to rebut or impeach testimony by the appropriating agencys expert that the trees had no value in terms of their effect on the propertys market value holding that a takings claimant must show that the invasion appropriated a benefit to the government at the expense of the property owner at least by preempting the property owners right to enjoy its property for an extended period of time rather than merely by inflicting an injury that reduces the propertys value holding that the failure to place a dollar value on a possible decrease in property value was not unreasonable