Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State, Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., 350 So. 2d 847.

26 citing documents.

Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov. v. Bendel Partnership (A Partnership in Commendam) La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
See State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd., Red River Waterway Comm’n, and Lucile B. Randol Heirs, ___ So.3d at ___.
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Lucile B. Randol Heirs, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State through Department of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co.
Ryan v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury 256 So. 3d 1044 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
" [ State v. ] Jeanerette Lumber [ & Shingle Co. , ,] 855-56 [La.
Stacey A. Ryan v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Furthermore, “expropriation ‘is special and exceptional in character, in derogation of common right, and must be strictly construed.’” [State v. ]Jeanerette Lumber [& Shingle Co., ] 855-56, quoting Orleans-Kenner Elec.
St. Bernard Port v. Violet Dock Port, Inc. 255 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See also State, Through Dep't of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd., , 855-56 (La.
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Jeffery C. Person La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
However, Louisiana has long recognized that expropriation “is special and exceptional in character, in derogation of common right, and must be strictly construed.” State v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd., quoting Orleans-Kenner Elec.
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Person 126 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
However, Louisiana has long recognized that expropriation “is special and exceptional in character, in derogation of common right, and must be strictly construed.” State v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd., quoting Orleans-Kenner Elec.
Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Nunley 77 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., rejected the essence of the Nunleys’ argument — that because an alternative route was available, the option selected must have been arbitrary.
Exxonmobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad 15 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
First, in State v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Company, the Louisiana Department of Highways sought to expropriate a permanent 400 foot servitude, including a 100 foot access canal.
Williams v. City of Baton Rouge 715 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
See State v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co.
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Estate of Griffin 669 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
State v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., -63 (La.1977).
State Through DOTD v. Estate of Davis 572 So. 2d 39 La. 1990
State, Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co.
Red River Waterway Com'n v. Fredericks 566 So. 2d 79 La. 1990
[2] State through Department of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co.
Brown v. Rougon 552 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
[8] This issue was addressed in State, Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd., (La.
Red River Water Commission v. Fredericks 546 So. 2d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
In State, etc. v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle, the Court dealt with a situation factually analogous to the instant case.
DEPT. OF TRANSP & DEVELOPMENT v. Aswell 517 So. 2d 894 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Const. 1974, art. 1 § 4; State, Through Department of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber and Shingle Co., Ltd., State, Through Department of Highways v. Olinkraft, Inc., cert.
State, D.O.T.D. v. Landry 507 So. 2d 252 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
The Guidry rule was modified by the Supreme Court in State, Etc. v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle, where the court stated that a question such as the extent of the estate to be taken under an order of expropriation is subject to judicial review on a showing that the plaintiff's finding of necessity was arbitrary, capricious, or in bad faith.
Bd. of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Dept. of Natural Resources 496 So. 2d 281 La. 1986
State, through Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd.
Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES 483 So. 2d 958 La. 1986
State, through Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd.
Matherne v. Terrebonne Parish Police Jury 462 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State, Etc. v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle, on rehearing.
Terrebonne Parish Police Jury v. Matherne 405 So. 2d 314 La. 1981
Cf. State, thru Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette *317 Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd.
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP., ETC. v. KG Farms, Inc. 402 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
State, Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd.
Wilson v. State ex rel. Louisiana Department & Development Office of Highways 400 So. 2d 740 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
La., , at pp. 855 and 856.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Boudreaux 401 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
State, Etc. v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle
STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Ellender 379 So. 2d 1069 La. 1980
& Shingle Co., that provision was relied upon in broadly construing a defendant's right in an expropriation suit to challenge, in the expropriation suit itself, the validity of the state's purpose in effecting the expropriation, without resorting to a separate suit.
State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Olinkraft, Inc. 350 So. 2d 865 La. 1977
In State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., Ltd., La., (Nos. 58,437 and 58,438, 1977), the decision in State Through the Department of Highways *869 v. Guidry, 240 La.