Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State, Department of Highways v. Moresi, 189 So. 2d 292.

17 citing documents.

State of Louisiana, dept.of Trans. & Develop. v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
2 Cir. 1976); State, Dep’t (La.App.
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC 158 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2 Cir.1976); State, Dep’t of High *9 (La.App.
BOARD OF COM'RS OF TENSAS v. Crawford 731 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Cormier v. Roberson 691 So. 2d 807 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
2nd Cir.1977); State, (La.App.
Arnold v. Town of Ball 651 So. 2d 313 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
City of Lafayette v. Dore 460 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Rains v. Diamond M. Co. 396 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
We faced a similar situation in State, (La.App.
STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. LeBlanc 388 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
1st Cir. 1970); and State, (La.App.
State, Dept. of Highways v. Eubanks 345 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Shackelford 331 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
More closely in point is State, in which the loss of five large shade trees was considered as an item of severance damages.
City of Lafayette v. Babineaux 297 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Also, apposite is the case of State, (La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Mertens 273 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
We think it is preferable in these matters that the court use the procedures and opinions of the expert witnesses, where they are logical and reasonable, rather than its own, (La.App.
State, Department of Highways v. Bernard 271 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
However, the district judge stated: “While I am not substituting my own opinion for it, I do know that the comparables they used are not comparables in any sense of the word.” Although our jurisprudence prohibits the use by the district judge of his personal opinion in preference to that of the expert witnesses in these matters, we are satisfied the district judge in this case did not do so.
State, Department of Highways v. Thurman 231 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
( ) Specifically, the appellate court in an expropriation case reversed the trial court's disallowance of severance damages in view of the finding by the appellate court that the trial court had based his decision upon his personal opinion as to the effect of the taking upon market value of the remainder rather t
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Miller 221 So. 2d 516 La. 1969
See State, Through Department of Highways v. Crossland, La.App., (1968); State, Through Department of Highways v. Moresi, La.App., (1966).
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Miller 218 So. 2d 79 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Distinguished State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Genest 218 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
State Through Dept. of Highways v. Moresi, La.App.3d Cir., , and similar decisions relied upon by the landowners are factually distinguishable.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by