Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc., 217 So. 2d 188.

18 citing documents.

Poule D'Eau Properties, LLC v. TLC Properties, Inc. and the Lamar Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
T. Burton Industries, Inc., So.
Crooks v. Department Of Natural Resources 263 So. 3d 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
T. Burton Industries, Inc. , , , 192 (1968) ("An easement is, however, property or an interest in land.") (Quoting 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses, § 2, p. 417-18 ).
Steve Crooks and Era Lea Crooks v. State of La., Department of Natural Resources La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
T. Burton Industries, Inc., So.2d 188, 192 (1968) (“An easement is, however, property or an interest in land.”) (Quoting 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses, § 2, p. 417-18).
Ellen Ibert v. Timothy v. Croulet and Tamra A. Croulet La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
T. Burton Indus., Inc., So.2d 188 (1968).
Ibert v. Croulet 258 So. 3d 866 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
T. Burton Indus., Inc. , , (1968).
Todd Morein, Et Ux. v. Acme Land Company La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
T. Burton Indus., Inc., So.2d 188 (1968).
Crews v. Griffith 856 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
T. Burton Industries, Inc., , (1968), the court recognized that "[a] `servitude' is the term used in the civil law to express the idea conveyed by the word `easement' in the common law."
William P. Crews, Jr. v. Hillard M. (Mitch) Griffith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
T. Burton Industries, Inc., So.2d 188 (1968), the court recognized that “[a] ‘servitude’ is the term used in the civil law to express the idea conveyed by the word ‘easement’ in the common law.” Id.
Parish of Jefferson v. Bonnabel Properties, Inc. 620 So. 2d 1168 La. 1993
T. Burton Industries, Inc., , (1968) ("An easement is, however, property or an interest in land.") (Quoting 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses, § 2, p. 417-18).
Traigle v. Gulf Coast Aluminum Corp. 422 So. 2d 1190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
“The general intent of law is the key to the whole statute and controls interpretation of the various parts...” See also, Humble Pipe Line Company v. William T. Burton Industries, Inc., , (1968); State v. St.
Leger v. St. Landry Aerial Applicators, Inc. 399 So. 2d 760 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Marsh Inv. Corp. 344 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
T. Burton Industries, Inc., , (1968) for recognition of servitude apart from ownership in expropriation cases.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Smith 270 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
T. Burton Industries, Inc., , , wherein the Su *184 preme Court held an owner entitled to the value of crops damaged notwithstanding the best and highest use of the land was for industrial purposes.
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Soileau 251 So. 2d 104 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
See Humble Pipe Line Company v. William T. Burton Industries, Inc., , (1968).
Collins Pipeline Company v. New Orleans East, Inc. 250 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
T. Burton Industries, Inc., , (1968) the Supreme Court stated: "The record discloses that Humble Pipe Line Company, a common carrier pipe line company (LSA-R.S.
Grayson v. Commissioners of Bossier Levee District 229 So. 2d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1969
T. Burton Industries, Inc., , 217 So.
United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Landry 228 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
T. Burton Industries, Inc., [reversed on other grounds, , ].
Humble Pipe Line Co. v. Wm. T. Burton Industries, Inc. 221 So. 2d 526 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
1055 , , and at , , held that even though the property subject to the expropriation proceeding was found to have its highest and best use for industrial development, the landowner could not be deprived of his damages to his crops as a result of the expropriation.