Arizona eminent domain cases often turn on appraisal opinions – market value, highest and best use, severance damages. For years, practitioners and the courts have operated under the assumption that most defects in valuation testimony went to weight, not admissibility. That approach has come under fire. Recent amendments to Rule 702, Arizona Rules of Evidence, and federal and state court decisions have put more teeth into the courts’ gate-keeper role. These developments provide practitioners with valuable tools for keeping unreliable opinions from reaching Arizona juries.
The Traditional Arizona Approach: Defects Usually Went to Weight
Arizona’s eminent domain jurisprudence has long cited cases like Barkley and Miller v. Wells Fargo for the proposition that shortcomings in appraisal testimony affect the weight the trier of fact should give the opinion, not its admissibility. That approach harmonized with an older understanding of expert evidence reflected in Bernstein and the comments to Rule 702, which deferred to cross-examination, competing experts, and jury instructions to expose “shaky” expert opinions.
The Rule 702 Amendments: Arizona Conforms to the New Federal Rule
In 2024, Arizona amended Rule 702 to conform with changes made to Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The amendments sharpened the gatekeeping inquiry by focusing courts on whether the proponent has shown – by a preponderance of the evidence – that the expert’s opinion rests on sufficient facts or data, reflects reliable principles and methods, and reliably applies those principles and methods to the case. The amendments also emphasize that each opinion must stay within the bounds of what can be concluded from a reliable application of the expert’s principles and methodology.
The Federal Rule Comments Anticipate More Robust Judicial Gatekeeping
The Federal Advisory Committee Notes, considered persuasive in Arizona, emphasize that Rule 702 has been amended to clarify that expert testimony may not be admitted unless the proponent first demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the proffered testimony meets all four admissibility requirements set forth in the Rule. The Notes explain that this amendment was intended to address court holdings, “that the critical questions of the sufficiency of an expert's basis, and the application of the expert's methodology, are questions of weight and not admissibility,” which are “an incorrect application of Rules 702 and 104(a).” These comments clarify that courts must resolve disputes over sufficiency of basis and reliability as threshold admissibility questions, not delegate those disputes to cross-examination.
The Ninth Circuit Confirms That “Weight” Comes After Reliability Is Established
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has taken this directive at face value. It has explained that challenges to expert opinions go to weight only if the court first finds, by a preponderance, that the expert has a sufficient basis and uses a reliable methodology to support the opinions. Engilis v. Monsanto Co., 151 F.4th 1040, 1049 (9th Cir. 2025) (“Properly applied, Rule 702 requires that challenges to an expert’s opinion go to the weight of the evidence only if a court first finds it more likely than not that an expert has a sufficient basis to support an opinion.”). In other words, the “weight” refrain is not a shortcut around judicial gatekeeping. It only comes into play after the proponent has satisfied the Rule 702 requirements.
Gonzales: Arizona Appraisal Testimony Can and Will Be Excluded
Against this backdrop, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently rejected an appraiser’s severance damage opinions in Gonzales v. City of Phoenix, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0308, 2026 WL 379752 (Ariz. Ct. App., Feb. 11, 2026). In that case, the City filed an eminent domain action to acquire property along South Central Avenue as part of a light rail extension. The owner disclosed a real estate appraiser who opined on severance damages attributed to potential crime, vagrancy and vandalism from an adjacent light rail station, and an inability to sell the property during the construction period.
The City moved to exclude the opinions under Rule 702 on the ground that they were not based on competent market data. The Superior Court granted the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that “Rule 702(b)’s requirement that expert testimony be based on sufficient facts or data requires the court to determine whether the expert considered enough information to offer a reliable opinion.” This framing is significant: the court treated the sufficiency of data as a threshold gatekeeping question for the court, not a credibility question for the jury. Although the court did not discuss the Rule 702 amendments, the court implicitly drew the line that the 2024 amendment and federal authority make explicit: cross-examination is the appropriate tool for attacking admissible evidence, but it is not a substitute for the threshold gatekeeping determination of factual sufficiency and reliability.
Why This Matters for Arizona Eminent Domain Practice
Valuation in condemnation hinges on expert methodology: whether sales are truly comparable, whether adjustments are market-supported, whether income and cost approaches are appropriately selected and reconciled, and whether alleged severance damages are tied to market evidence rather than speculation. Historically, condemning authorities have faced a high bar to exclude unreliable appraisal opinions based on the courts’ restrictive application of Rule 702. However, with the amendments to Rule 702, and the Gonzales court as an example, Arizona trial courts are encouraged to apply more rigorous scrutiny before appraisal opinions reach the jury. This will ensure that Rule 702 fulfills its gatekeeping function and that valuation disputes turn on reliable evidence.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]