Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Texas Pipe Line Company v. Barbe, 85 So. 2d 260.

74 citing documents.

Naquin v. DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEV. OF STATE 604 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
1 , ; , ; 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain, Sec.
Rester v. Gravity Drainage Board No. II 473 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
City of Lafayette v. Dore 460 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Parish of Jefferson v. Boudreaux 383 So. 2d 437 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1980
697 , (1959); , (1956); Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission v. Watson, et al., supra.
Brooks v. New Orleans Public Service 370 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1979
2d Cir. 1978); Nagle v. Police Jury of Caddo Parish, 144 So.
Prentice Oil & Gas Co. v. Caldwell 355 So. 2d 1327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
787 , (1943); , (1955); (La.App.
State, Department of Highways v. Advance Enterprises, Inc. 332 So. 2d 899 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
State, Dept. of Hwys. v. Ross Continental Mot. L., Inc. 328 So. 2d 883 La. 1976
259 , (1962); , (1956); Central La.
Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. McCaskill 307 So. 2d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Mahaffey 307 So. 2d 387 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
751 , (1958); , (1955); (La.App.
Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Dement 307 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Conger 307 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
751 , (1958); , (1955); which are also authorities for the proposition that the burden is upon the defendants, the landowners, to establish the before-and-after-taking values in order to determine the quantum of severance damages.
State, Dept. of Hwys. v. Denham Springs Dev. Co., Inc. 307 So. 2d 304 La. 1975
Parish of Jefferson v. Gonzales 288 So. 2d 65 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1974
LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT CO., INC. v. Hendee Homes, Inc. 275 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
(1956): "Defendants must effectively show the market value of each tract immediately *903 before and immediately after the expropriation in order to establish the quantum of their severance damages."
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Snider 276 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Norris 268 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
740 , , .” In effect, we find Porter has followed the rule quoted above from the Mason case.
United Gas Pipe Line v. Schwegmann 267 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1955), the Supreme Court, on page 270 (85 So.2d), stated: “[13] In the instant case we think the evidence shows that a real danger exists, and for this reason if for no other it is clear to us that the value of the adjacent land has depreciated and that defendants here have suffered severance damages.
Collins Pipeline Company v. New Orleans East, Inc. 250 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
(1955); Texas Pipe Line Co. v. National Gasoline Co., 203 La.
Evangeline Parish Police Jury v. Deville 247 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
697 , (1959); , (1956); Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission v. Watson, et al., supra.
Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Stipe 231 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Gaupp 232 So. 2d 273 La. 1970
165 , , , , is supportive of *572 their contention for the award of 100 per cent of the value of the land for the mere granting of a servitude.
Dixie Pipeline Company v. Barry 227 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Gaupp 220 So. 2d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
751 , ; , ; Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Simmons, 229 La.
Fletcher v. Smith 216 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Parish of East Baton Rouge v. S & H HEATING COMPANY 216 So. 2d 360 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
1061 , ; the creation of something inherently dangerous on adjacent property, , ; the reduction of diminution of services, State through Department of Highways v. Caldwell Brothers Real Estate Inc., La.App., ; compensation for loss of lease rights, State through Department of Highways v. Ferris, 227 La.
Columbia Gulf Transmission Company v. Hoyt 215 So. 2d 114 La. 1968
1 , ; , ; 4 Nichols, Eminent Domain, § 14.2 (3d ed. rev. 1963).
Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc. 205 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
In Texas Pipe Line Company v. Barbe (1955) , , the Supreme Court considered a case very similar to this instant case.
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dixon 201 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Gamburg 200 So. 2d 733 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
State, Department of Highways v. Talbot 200 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Trunkline Gas Company v. Verzwyvelt 196 So. 2d 58 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
State, Dept. of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church 197 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
1061 , ; the creation of something inherently dangerous on adjacent property, , ; the reduction or diminution of services, State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Caldwell Brothers Real Estate Inc., La.App., 155 So.
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Wright 195 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
787 , ; Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Barbe, supra [ , ].” Plaintiff argues that Mrs. Wright took such a long time to start and proceed with the development of her proposed subdivision that she should have been held as having abandoned it.
Texas Pipe Line Company v. Stein 190 So. 2d 244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
(1956); Texas Pipe Line Co. v. National Gasoline Co., 203 La.
State, Sabine River Authority v. Salter 184 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Gulf States Utilities Company v. Cormier 182 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
1 , ; , ; Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Broussard, La.App.
Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Dunbar 183 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
787 , ; Texas Pipe Line Co. v. Barbe, [ , ], supra.
Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Williams 181 So. 2d 844 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
(1956) and numerous cases cited therein.
State, Department of Highways v. Burden 180 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
(Emphasis Added)" Counsel for the State in brief additionally cited the case of Texas Pipe Line Company v. Barbe (1956), , , and quoted several excerpts therefrom which counsel stated "show conclusively that the Supreme Court considered that the pipeline servitude under scrutiny actually separated and divided the whole tracts into additional tracts and, though considered as causing severance damage, such a separation or div
State, Department of Highways v. Lancon 174 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Likewise, although a hazardous condition resulting from an expropriation is *260 compensable if it actually affects market value, see, e. g., , , the evidence herein of the plaintiff's experts negates any substantial loss in the market value of the defendant's property through any potentially dangerous condition allegedly created by the somewhat gradual curve of the new highway.
State, Department of Highways v. Waterbury 171 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Leger 170 So. 2d 399 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
State Through Department of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Co., 238 La.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. 165 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Acme Brick Co. 162 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Norris 160 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
1 ; , ; Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. C. M. Thibodeaux Co., La.App.
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. New Orleans Term. Co. 156 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
the Supreme Court held that severance damages, if proven, should be awarded to the owners of two tracts of potential industrial realty that would be crossed diagonally by a 16" high pressure pipeline which would transport gasoline.
Colonial Pipeline Company v. Babineaux 154 So. 2d 594 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
and Texas Pipeline Company v. National Gasoline Company of Louisiana, Inc., 203 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. O'Neal 149 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
965 , ; , ; Louisiana Highway Commission v. Ferguson, 176 La.
Coastal Transmission Corporation v. Lejeune 148 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
such a method of computing severance damages was not allowed under the facts of that case.