Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite STATE OF LOUISIANA THROUGH DEPT. OF HWYS. v. Glassell, 77 So. 2d 881.

35 citing documents.

State of Louisiana, Dept. of Transportation & Develop. v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
988, ] and is manifestly erroneous.
State of Louisiana, dept.of Trans. & Develop. v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State, Dep’t So.2d 881 (La.1955).
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC 158 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Miltenberger 344 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
This award is also rejected under authority of State, , (1955), which states the general rule that trees and shrubbery are not to be appraised independently of the land.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Shackelford 331 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
The Highway Department attacks the award of the value of the trees separate and distinct from the value of the land, , (1955).
State, Department of Highways v. Blair 285 So. 2d 212 La. 1973
decided by this court in 1955, is not applicable.
State, Department of Highways v. Bernard 271 So. 2d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1955), the court held that native pecan trees, which were not planted, were neither “improvements” nor “crops” within the meaning of LSA-R.S.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Cefalu 233 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Co., (4th La.App., 1963); , (1955) (1st La.App., 1967, writs refused, 1967).
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Williams 210 So. 2d 616 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
It relies on three cases, particularly State of Louisiana, , (1955), in which the landowner’s claim for $2000 as additional compensation for 30 pecan trees situated in the right-of-way was rejected.
State v. Black 207 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
State v. Jenkins 207 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
See State of Louisiana, , (1955); Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Broussard, 234 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Huson 166 So. 2d 3 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
One of the principal errors complained of by appellant is the method utilized by the lower court in fixing separate values on such items as the shrubbery, trees, driveway, etc. As authority for such argument several cases have been cited, among them being State of Louisiana, , (1955) and Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Broussard, 234 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Acme Brick Co. 162 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Mere consequential injuries to the owners, arising from discomfort, disturbance, injury to business, and the like, remain, as they were before, damna absque injuria, — particular sacrifices which society has the right to inflict for the public good.” In State of Louisiana, , , the Supreme Court specifically held that increased costs of operation are too remote and speculative to form the basis of an award.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Hayward 150 So. 2d 6 La. 1963
In support of his ruling, the judge relied on, among other cases, , , wherein it was held that, in the absence of a showing of severance damages, a landowner whose property is expropriated for borrow pit purposes may not recover more than the market value of the land.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Davis 149 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
State, , ; State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Ponder, La.App.
Derbofen v. TL James & Company 148 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
We are referred to several cases, , 77 So.
State v. Lumpkin 147 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
v. Glassell, , ; State Through Dept. of Highways v. Ponder, La.App.
Beatty v. Vining 147 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
State Through Department of Highways v. Barber, 238 La.
Greater Baton Rouge Consol. Sewer Dist. v. Nelson 144 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ponder 140 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
(1955), the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s allowance of full acreage price for a borrow pit.
State v. Henderson 138 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
in which the court held native pecan trees "* * * not grown on the land as a special crop * * *" could not be regarded as constituting a separate item of damages and "* * * should have been considered by the judge only in determining the value of the land on which they were located * * *.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Gras 141 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ebrecht 135 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
988 , ; , ; City of New Orleans v. Larroux, 203 La.
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Fuselier 133 So. 2d 828 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Under a very similar set of facts our Supreme Court, , , with considerable citation of authority, held the following to be the law: "We think that this point is well taken.
Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Burns 131 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 224 La.
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. Stoer 116 So. 2d 498 La. 1959
( , and Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 224 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Barber 115 So. 2d 864 La. 1959
7 , , ; Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 224 La.
City of New Orleans v. Giraud 115 So. 2d 349 La. 1959
State of Louisiana through Dept. of Highways v. Glassell, 1955, , ; Lafayette Parish, etc. v. Hernandez, 1957, 232 La.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Tieman 112 So. 2d 724 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
* * *’ State of Louisiana through Department of Highways v. Glassell, 1955, , .” In Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Dileo, La.App., , this Court stated: “With regard to the valuation placed by the trial court upon the servitude granted, in these expropriation proceedings, the trial court’s award will not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous.
Gravity Drainage District No. 1 v. Key 99 So. 2d 82 La. 1958
Housing Authority v. Waters 96 So. 2d 560 La. 1957
* * *” State of Louisiana through Department of Highways v. Glassell, 1955, , .
East Baton Rouge Parish Council v. Koller 94 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
s a guide in arriving at the valuation of the loss to be caused the property by removal of the two present trees, plaintiff urges that the District Court erroneously arrived at its award by valuing the trees independently of the land, rather than only as a factor in determining the value as a whole of the land on which located, , (syllabus 6), which ruling however is partially based upon the technicalities specifically pertaining to LSA-R.S.
Lafayette Parish Through the Police Jury v. Hernandez 93 So. 2d 672 La. 1957