Cited by

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

74 citing documents.

Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. CM Thibodeaux Co. 148 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Department of Highways v. Southwestern Electric Power Co. 145 So. 2d 312 La. 1962
the Court on second rehearing, in applying the uniform rule, quoted approvingly from American Tel.
Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Mire 140 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State v. Gani 138 So. 2d 683 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
965 , ; , ; Louisiana Highway Commission v. Ferguson, 176 La.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Terzia 138 So. 2d 874 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
On the other hand the Supreme Court, reviewing the question of an excessive taking, held that a , .
Interstate Oil Pipe Line Company v. Friedman 137 So. 2d 700 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
our Louisiana Supreme Court stated: "It must be borne in mind that we are not here dealing with a right of way for a road or highway or a cable buried below plow depth, but are dealing with a right of way for a 16-inch high pressure pipeline transporting high octane gasoline.
City of Natchitoches v. Cox 135 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Louisiana Railway & Navigation Company v. Morere, 116 La.
United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Nezat 136 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
787 , ; Texas Pipe Line Company v. Barbe (1955), , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bourg 135 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Distinguished Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Fuselier 133 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
This case is readily distinguishable from Texas Pipeline Company v. Barbe, 1956, , in which the majority opinion held that a first high pressure gasoline pipeline would obviously affect the market value of defendant's property which was useful for industrial sites.
Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Harang 131 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Central La. El. Co. v. Covington & St. Tammany L. & I. Co. 131 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Morehouse Realty Co. 126 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Co. 117 So. 2d 261 La. 1960
740 , and Texas Pipe *979 , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Co. 118 So. 2d 364 La. 1960
354 ; , ; Lafayette Parish v. Hernandez, supra; Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Broussard, 234 La.
Parish of Iberia v. Cook 116 So. 2d 491 La. 1959
City of New Orleans v. Giraud 115 So. 2d 349 La. 1959
319 ; Britt v. City of Shreveport, La.App.1955, ; Texas Pipe Line Company v. Barbe, 1956, , ; Lafayette Parish, etc. v. Hernandez, 1957, 232 La.
Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Bowman 115 So. 2d 797 La. 1959
In addition to the above mentioned two orders of the Federal Power Commission, which unquestionably constitute competent and admissible evidence, , .
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Broussard 101 So. 2d 657 La. 1958
was an expropriation action to obtain a'right of way for a potentially dangerous high pressure pipeline somewhat similar to the instant one.
Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Primeaux 100 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Gravity Drainage District No. 1 v. Key 99 So. 2d 82 La. 1958
Lafayette Parish Through the Police Jury v. Hernandez 93 So. 2d 672 La. 1957
Tennessee Gas Transmission Co. v. Bailey 93 So. 2d 296 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Furthermore, , , in which it was stated that the line in that case was potentially dangerous and leaks are expected to occur in the line from time to time and when they do occur explosions do result, is a case in which the line was carrying high octane gasoline.
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Simmons 85 So. 2d 251 La. 1956