Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Rownd, 119 So. 2d 282.

23 citing documents.

State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ponder 342 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Marsh Inv. Corp. 344 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
Collins Pipeline Company v. New Orleans East, Inc. 250 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
792 , (1964); City of Monroe v. Nastasi, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1965); State v. Rownd, La.App., (Orleans Appeals, 1959).
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Holmes 205 So. 2d 416 La. 1967
2 In concluding that the appeals should be dismissed, the Court of Appeal relied in the main on two other Court of Appeal cases, viz., State, Through the Department of Highways v. Rownd (La.App., Orl.1959), (cert.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bassemier 203 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
4th Cir., (1960) the Court held: To the same effect see State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Richard, La.App., (1961) ; State, Through Dept, of Highways v. Kurtz, La.App., (1962); State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Vallon, La.App., (1966); and to the same effect as to severance dam
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Jacques 197 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
*418 “In either event the defendant has the burden of proving his claim.” (Emphasis Supplied) As a result of the statute the defendant owner must “produce convincing evidence that the value of the property taken is in excess of that shown in the estimate on which the Highway Department has made the deposit.” (See State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., ; State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Richard, La.App., ; State of Louisiana, Through the
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Creech 194 So. 2d 803 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
(Orl.1959—writs denied); State Through Department of Highways v. Kemp (La.App.)
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Holmes 194 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
19.1 of the Constitution of Louisiana; Louisiana Re *183 vised Statutes 48:445 and 48:456; State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways v. Rownd (Orl.App.1959) (cert.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Reimers 192 So. 2d 558 La. 1966
In State, (1960), the Orleans Court of Appeal declared that “in the absence of tender the expropriating body is liable for all costs incurred by the defendants under the clear provisions of LSA-R.S.
Dow v. Department of Highways 179 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Orleans, .” [ ] For the reasons herein stated the judgment from which appealed is affirmed at appellants’ cost.
State v. Baddock 170 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
App., ; State Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., ."
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Dodge 166 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
State through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App.Orl., , certiorari denied.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Cannon 159 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
48:453; State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways v. Rownd, Jr., [La.App.,] .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Lascaro 153 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
through Dept. of Highways v. Ford Graham, La.App., the court held: “Department of Highways, on appeal from decision of District Court increasing awards to property owners in expropriation proceedings, was required to deposit additional amount of award in registry of court, or to pay necessary amount directly to landowners, and in doing either one or the other, it did
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Kemp 141 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
48:453, State of Louisiana, Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., .
State v. Kurtz 143 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
App., ; State Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bundy 143 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In State of Louisiana, Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., Orleans 1959, , the court observed that when the owner claims the value of the expropriated property is in excess of the estimate, he has the burden of proving his claim, and “ ‘He must produce convincing evidence that the value is in excess of that shown in the estimate on which the Department of Highways has made the deposit
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Levy 136 So. 2d 35 La. 1961
48:453; State of Louisiana Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, Jr., La.App., .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Richard 135 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
As stated in State Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., , the defendant “must produce convincing evidence that the value is in excess of that shown in the estimate on which the Department of Highways has made the deposit.” The defendant herein did not do that.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McNeely 130 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
In State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., Orleans 1959, , the court observed that when the owner claims the value of the expropriated property is in excess of the estimate, he has the burden of proving his claim, and “He must produce convincing evidence that the value is in excess of that shown in the estimate on which the Department of Highways has made the deposit.”
Bernard v. State 127 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Zeringue v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor 127 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1961
State Through Department of Highways v. Rownd, La.App., .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Folse 126 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1961
The other two cases, Rownd and Graham, have been disposed of by us and the decisions were published in 1960 as State v. Rownd (State v. Graham), La.App., .