Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Rapier, 164 So. 2d 280.

48 citing documents.

St. Bernard Port v. Violet Dock Port, Inc. 255 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
1079 , (1953) ; State, , (1964).
South Lafourche Levee District v. Jarreau 192 So. 3d 214 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “market value means the worth of the land considered in the light of its best and highest use.” , (1964); see also, Borgnemouth Realty Co., 141 So.3d at 901 .
State of La., Thru Dotd v. Paul Henry Wagner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
5/15/01), State, Dep’t So.2d 280 (1964).
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Wagner 25 So. 3d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill, 00-2535 (La.5/15/01), ; State, Dep’t , (1964).
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill 788 So. 2d 1154 La. 2001
1079 , (1953); State, , (1964).
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. LeBlanc 763 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
1079 , (1953); , (1964).
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill 763 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
1079 , (1953); State, , (1964).
Vela v. Plaquemines Parish Government 729 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
In West Jefferson Levee District v. Coast Quality Construction Corp., 93-1718 (La.5/23/94); , State, , (1964); State, (La.App.
West Jefferson Levee D. v. Coast Quality 640 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
[24] In State, , (1964), this court stated: [I]n an expropriation suit of this nature the proper measure of compensation is the market value of the thing taken, i.e., the price for which the property could be sold by a willing and informed seller to a willing and informed buyer in the condition in which it stood
Shopf v. Marina Del Ray Partnership 549 So. 2d 833 La. 1989
STATE, DOTD v. Fakouri 541 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Foshee 533 So. 2d 1283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
STATE, DOTD v. Semp Russ Plantations 529 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State, Department of Highways v. Modica 514 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State Through Dept. of Highways v. Bray 511 So. 2d 1300 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State, Dept. of Trans. & Dev. v. Boagni 509 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Louisiana Resources Co. v. Noel 499 So. 2d 1016 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
City of New Orleans v. McKendrick 485 So. 2d 653 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
ate, the Fifth Circuit underscores the connection between market value and best use when it defines market value in terms of its highest and best use, “this being the most favorable employment to which the property may reasonably be put in the not too distant future.” State, , (1964).
Southwestern Elec. Power Co. v. Scurlock 485 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1079 , (1953); State, , (1964); Faustina Pipe, supra.
Faustina Pipe Line Co. v. Hebert 469 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
See State, , (1964); -85 (La.App.3d Cir.1984), writ denied, writ denied
STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT v. Winn 463 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Lutcher & Moore Cypress Lumber Co. 462 So. 2d 215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Faustina Pipe Line Co. v. Bernard 458 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Faustina Pipe Line Co. v. Broussard 450 So. 2d 17 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
3 Cir.1980); State, , (1964).
Pointe Coupee Elec. Mem. Corp. v. Mounger 447 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Luling Indus. 443 So. 2d 672 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Goldsby 427 So. 2d 580 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
Town of Rayville v. Thomason 404 So. 2d 1290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Losavio v. Gauthier 400 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Louisiana Resources Co. v. Langlinais 383 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
We stated as follows: "We are in accord with the language of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Louisiana, , (1964) which reads as follows: "The Court of Appeal correctly recognized that in an expropriation suit of this nature the proper measure of compensation is the market value of the thing taken, i. e., the price for which the property could be sold by a willing and informed seller to a willing and i
State Through Dept. of Highways v. Ponder 345 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
State, , (1964); (La.App.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Manasco 331 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
State, , (1964).” In the instant case, the lower court in written reasons for judgment stated: “The evidence did not disclose any effort on the part of defendants to improve the land for the development of a subdivision such as Mr. Manasco described in his testimony and on which defendant contends they are enti
State, Department of Highways v. Willet 322 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
While the owner's testimony in the capacity of an expert may be considered ( State, , ), it should be viewed with caution as would be the testimony of any other witness who has an interest in the outcome of a lawsuit.
State, Department of Highways v. Clement 311 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
1st Cir. 1963) judgment amended , (1964).
State, Dept. of Highways v. Terrace Land Co., Inc. 298 So. 2d 859 La. 1974
Dixie Electric Membership Corp. v. Riddle 277 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Stegemann 269 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
The Supreme Court amended the judgment not because it disagreed with the First Circuit's statement of the law, , 164 So.
Lafayette Airport Commission v. Roy 265 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
Recreation & Parks Commission, Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Loret 263 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Cypress-Black Bayou Recreation & Water Conservation District v. Conger 234 So. 2d 212 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
The Louisiana Supreme Court, in State Through Dept, , (1964), quoting from the opinion of the Court of Appeal, stated the rule as follows: “The Court of Appeal correctly recognized that in an expropriation suit of this nature the proper measure of compensation is the market value of the thing taken, i. e., the price for which the property could be so
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hannah 217 So. 2d 798 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
Prejean v. Trinity Universal Insurance Company 210 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
See also State of Louisiana, , (1964).
State v. Jenkins 207 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
See e. g., State of Louisiana, *387 , (1964).
State, Department of Highways v. Mouledous 200 So. 2d 384 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
State, Department of Highways, v. Rapier, , (1964); State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Hedwig, Inc., (La.App.
Gulf States Utilities Company v. Norman 183 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
1036 , and cases therein cited; that is, the worth of the property in the light of the highest and best use to which the property is adaptable and to which it may reasonably be put in the not too distant future, , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Fontane 185 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
State, Department of Highways v. LeDoux 184 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
State, Dept. of Highways v. Carlina, La.App.
Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Dunbar 183 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
674 , , judgment amended, , ; Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Harang, La.App., .