Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State, Dept. of Highways v. Trippeer Realty Corp., 276 So. 2d 315.

20 citing documents.

West Jefferson Levee D. v. Coast Quality 640 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
The burden of proving entitlement to severance damages, (La.
STATE, DOT AND DEVELOPMENT v. Keating 541 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
1044 , (1966) which was reaffirmed in State, rehearing den., that such costs cannot legally be assessed against the DOTD, we reverse the trial court's judgment on its ex parte Rule to Show Cause which ordered the DOTD to pay to the Clerk of Court for the Twenty-Fifth Judicial District Court the sum of $1,216.80 for disbursement to jurors who served at
East Baton Rouge Parish v. Hays 498 So. 2d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
State, Dept. of Highways v. Bitterwolf 415 So. 2d 196 La. 1982
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bitterwolf 401 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
1976); State, State, (La.App.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Moseley 390 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Champagne 371 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Champagne 356 So. 2d 1136 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
City of New Orleans v. Giraud 346 So. 2d 1113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
State, State, Department of Highways v. St.
STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Romano 343 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Shuff 332 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
State, State, State, Department of Highways v.Hayward, 243 La.
STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Westport Development Co., Inc. 332 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
State, Department of Highways v. Tyler 326 So. 2d 349 La. 1976
State through Department of Highways v. Hayward, 243 La.
State, Dept. of Hwys. v. Ross Continental Motor Lodge, Inc. 315 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
State, Dept. of Highways v. Port Properties, Inc. 316 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
In State, Department of Highways v. Trippeer Realty Corp., La., (1973), a case initiated under the "quick taking" statute, our Supreme Court made the following observations at page 319: "As was stated in State, through Dept. of Highways v. Hayward, 243 La.
State, Dept. of Highways v. Nisbet Properties, Inc. 309 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
STATE, DEPT. OF HWYS. v. St. Tammany Homestead Ass'n 304 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
State, Through Department of Highways v. Trippeer Realty Corporation, La., .
State, Department of Highways v. Wax 295 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
In support of this contention plaintiff cites the case of State, wherein the court stated that the value of property expropriated should be fixed considering the property as of the time of the taking but not as enhanced by the purpose of the taking.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Beatty 288 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
In support of this contention plaintiff cites the case of State, wherein the court stated that the value of property expropriated should be fixed considering the property as of the time of the taking but not as enhanced by the purpose of the taking.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Wellan's, Inc. 279 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
See the recent case of State, Department of Highways v. Trippeer Realty Corporation, La., (1973) in which our Supreme Court allowed severance damage to improvements.