Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Jackson Brewing Company, 146 So. 2d 504.

13 citing documents.

Board of Supervisors v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C. 151 So. 3d 908 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Skinner v. Boise Southern Co. 364 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Olinkraft, Inc. 350 So. 2d 865 La. 1977
See State, Through the Department of Highways v. Jackson Brewing Company, La.App., (1962); State, Through the Department of Highways v. Higgins, La.App., (1961).
Monroe Redevelopment Agency v. Effron Land Corp. 294 So. 2d 861 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
App. (4th Cir.), and cases cited therein.” (Emphasis added) We have been cited to no cases, nor has independent research disclosed any, which would permit of a contrary interpretation.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Baudy 252 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
48:452 provided that a defendant’s failure to file answer timely “constitutes a waiver of all his defenses to the suit.” The jurisprudence has interpreted the statute as mandatory, making untimely answer ineffective to place adequacy of compensation at issue; cert.
Gremillion v. Travelers Indemnity Company 240 So. 2d 727 La. 1970
This is certainly not such an unjust or inequitable requirement as would justify the court in departing from the plain language of the statute.” State Through Dept. of Highways v. Jackson Brewing Company, La.App., .
Tenneco Inc. v. Earhart 220 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
We agree, as contended by the State, that the provisions of the statute were complied with and that the notice is proper and legal and that, therefore, defendant-owner is precluded from questioning value as has been held in State Through Department of Highways v. Higgins, La.App., and State, Through Department of Highways v. Jackson Brewing Co., La.App., .” We agree with the following statement made by the author in 6 Nichols, Eminent Domain, 26.12[2] (3rd Ed.1965): “The courts are not inclined
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Terral 206 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Although the Highway Department has in some suits such as this filed a “Petition for Final Judgment”, (La.App.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Reuter 175 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Morton 167 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dileo, La.App., , , City of Gretna v. Mitchell, La.App., .
Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Sigue 163 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
(4th Cir.), and cases cited therein.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Cefalu 153 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
We agree, as contended by the State, that ■the provisions of the statute were complied with and that the notice is proper and legal .and that, therefore, defendant-owner is precluded from questioning value as has been ' .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Cefalu 146 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
In support of the aforesaid exceptions and motion to dismiss, learned counsel for plaintiff cites and strongly relies upon State v. Higgins, La.App., and State v. Jackson Brewing Company, La.App., , both decided by our brothers of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.