Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite A. K. Roy, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 111 So. 2d 765.
-
Timothy Bernard, Sr., Et Ux. v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Roy, -48, (1959) (Prescriptive period of La.
-
Bernard v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government
80 So. 3d 665
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Roy, -48 , (1959) (Prescriptive period of La.R.S.
-
Holzenthal v. SEWERAGE & WATER BD. OF NO
950 So. 2d 55
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
Roy, -48 , (1959) (Prescriptive period of La.
-
Avenal v. State
886 So. 2d 1085
La. 2004
Roy, -48 , (1959) (Prescriptive period of La.
- Avenal v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources 858 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
-
Wynat Dev. Co. v. BD. OF LEVEE COM'RS
710 So. 2d 783
La. 1998
Roy, , (1959); Board of Com'rs for Pontchartrain Levee Dist.
-
Benton v. Board of Commissioners for the East Jefferson Levee District
672 So. 2d 999
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
That statute established a two year prescriptive period for all affected owners, and for appropriations which had already occurred, gave these parties an additional two years, or until November 17, 1960, to bring their actions, see A.K Roy, , (1959).
- DeSambourg v. BOARD OF COM'RS 621 So. 2d 602 La. 1993
-
Gravolet v. Board of Com'rs
598 So. 2d 1231
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
of Com'rs for Pontchartrain Levee Dist., , (1959).
-
Kimble v. Board of Commissioners
598 So. 2d 1251
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
of Comm’rs, , (1959) the court predicated the application of the servitude upon a “showing that the purpose for which the property was taken had any relation whatsoever to control of the flood waters of the Mississippi River within the range of the reasonable necessities of the situation as produced by the force
-
Olivier v. Louisiana Gas Service Co.
551 So. 2d 67
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Roy, , (1959), where plaintiff was seeking damages from an unlawful appropriation, the Supreme Court refused to apply LSA-R.S.
-
Delaune v. City of Kenner
550 So. 2d 1386
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
The engineering testimony in the case of A. K. Roy, Inc. vs. The Board of Commissioners for the Pontchartrain Levee District, infra, is, under this stipulation, governing in this case; and insofar as the legal issues are concerned, the Supreme Court's decisions in the cases of A. K. Roy, Inc. vs. The Board of Commissioners for the Pontchartrain Levee District, , ; [ 238 La.
-
Board of Levee Commissioners of Orleans Levee District v. Newport Ltd.
517 So. 2d 406
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Roy, , (1959); Mississippi River Transmission Corp. v. Tabor, 757 F.2d 662 (5th Cir.1985).
-
Broussard v. Booth
446 So. 2d 974
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Roy, , (1959), which provides: "[D]efendant, in this court relies solely on R.S.
- Boudreaux v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury 422 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
-
Terrebonne v. SOUTH LOUISIANA TIDAL WATER CONTROL LEVEE DIST.
414 So. 2d 805
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
In A. K. Roy, , (1959), the tract of land for which appropriation was sought was part of a tract which was riparian to the Mississippi River when separated from the public domain.
-
Detlic Farm & Timber Co. v. Board of Com'rs
368 So. 2d 1109
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
846 , (1959); A. K. Roy, , (1959); Jeanerette Lumber and Shingle Co. v. Board of Comm'rs, 249 La.
-
Stevenson v. BD. OF LEVEE COM'RS, ETC.
353 So. 2d 459
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
In A. K. Roy, , (1959), the land at issue was part of a large tract which was riparian to the Mississippi River.
-
Greater Baton Rouge Airport Dist. v. Hays
339 So. 2d 431
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
A. K. Roy, , (1959); Miller v. Colonial Pipeline Company, La.App., (3rd Cir. 1965).
- Taylor v. BOARD OF LEVEE COM'RS 332 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
-
Stevens v. State Mineral Board
233 So. 2d 542
La. 1970
315 ; Roy, Inc., v. Board of Commissioners, , .
-
Grayson v. Commissioners of Bossier Levee District
229 So. 2d 139
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
Further, A. K. Roy, , , has added the requirement that, in order to be subject to the servitude, the land taken must be necessary to the levee and flood control system on the river to which it is riparian, and not merely necessary to the flood control system in general.
-
Schneider v. Jefferson Parish
216 So. 2d 604
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1968
This contention is disposed of by the rationale of the Supreme Court in A. K. Roy, , (1959).
-
Miller v. Colonial Pipeline Company
173 So. 2d 840
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
In A. K. Roy, , (1959) the defendant Levee Board appropriated certain land to erect a levee, as authorized by the Louisiana Constitution.
-
Wood v. Board of Commissioners
151 So. 2d 524
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1963
9:5626 is applicable in the instant case and, in connection therewith, emphasis has been placed on a footnote comment (No. 9) which appears in the case of A. K. Roy, , .
-
State v. Cenac
132 So. 2d 928
La. 1961
315 ; Roy, Inc., v. Board of Commissioners, , .
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Louisiana Public Service Commission
128 So. 2d 644
La. 1961
641 , ; Lands v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U. S., 239 La.
-
Illinois Central Railroad v. Louisiana Public Service Commission
125 So. 2d 387
La. 1960
801 , ; A. K. Roy, , ; Lands v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U. S., 239 La.
-
AK Roy, Inc. v. Board of Com'rs for Pontchartrain LD
117 So. 2d 60
La. 1960
evoid of material facts necessary to a determination of this matter since the evidence was inconclusive as to whether the property appropriated by the defendant for which plaintiff claimed compensation is subject to private ownership, that is, whether the subject property was above the mean high water level of Lake Pontchartrain upon which it borders, remanding the case to the District Court, , 111 So.
-
Weiss v. Board of Commissioners
115 So. 2d 804
La. 1959
Estopinal and Grevem-berg (including exhibits in connection therewith) taken at the trial on January 20, 1958 in the matter of A. K. Roy, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners for the Pontchartrain Levee District, No. 8420 of the docket of this court, * * *.” (The Roy matter referred to was later docketed in this court under No. 44,375, and our decision therein is reported in , .)