Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad, 35 So. 3d 192.

13 citing documents.

Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Tuan Nguyen La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
3/16/10), (quotations omitted)( (La.
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov. v. Bendel Partnership (A Partnership in Commendam) La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
3/16/10), (citations omitted).
City of Ruston, Louisiana v. Family Investment Resources, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Bayou Bridge Pipeline, LLC v. 38.00 Acres, More or Less, Located in St. Martin Parish La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
3/16/10), (quoting Town of Vidalia v. Unopened Succession of Ruffin, 95-580, p. 7 (La.App.
Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Oliver Liecht McMickens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
3/16/10), wherein it stated: In challenges to the necessity of a taking, the landowner must prove that the legislatively-authorized expropriator exercised “its large discretion” arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith.
Acadian Gas Pipeline Sys. v. McMickens 263 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/16/10), , 200, wherein it stated: In challenges to the necessity of a taking, the landowner must prove that the legislatively-authorized expropriator exercised "its large discretion" arbitrarily, capriciously, or in bad faith.
ST. BERNARD PORT, HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT v. VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC., LLC St. Bernard Port, Harbor & … 239 So. 3d 243 La. 2018
3/16/10), (“Whether the expropriator’s purpose is public and necessary is a judicial determination that will not be reversed on appeal absent manifest error.”).
Enterprise Te Products Pipeline Co., LLC v. Rosalyn Marie Davis Patin Avila La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC and Plains Marketing, L.P. v. Eddie Soileau, Sheriff and Ex Officio Tax Collector La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
3/16/10), (emphasis added).
Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC v. Soileau 141 So. 3d 367 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co., 09-1629, p. 8 (La.3/16/10), (emphasis added).
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Person 100 So. 3d 293 La. 2012
In Exxon Mobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 09-1629 (La.3/16/10), , we set forth the standards for determining whether an expropriation is proper: As the law now stands, all the expropriator must prove is a public need in the expropriation by a preponderance of the evidence.
Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Nunley 77 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Const. Art. 1, § 4, then they would use any relevant evidence to prove that Acadian selected this route “arbitrarily, capriciously or in bad faith.” ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific R. Co., 2009-1629 (La.3/16/10), .
Parish of St. Charles v. R.H. Creager, Inc. 55 So. 3d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Co., 09-1629 (La.3/16/10), .