Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Red River Waterway Com'n v. Fredericks, 566 So. 2d 79.

20 citing documents.

Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov. v. Bendel Partnership (A Partnership in Commendam) La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Red River Waterway Comm’ and authorities cited therein.
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Lucile B. Randol Heirs, L.L.C. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
In the seminal case on quick taking, -83 (La.1990) (footnotes omitted), the supreme court laid out the factors to be considered in an expropriation under a quick-taking statute: The highway quick-taking statute, which was patterned after the Federal Declaration of Taking Act, 40 U.S.C.
City of Ruston, Louisiana v. Family Investment Resources, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks, (La.
Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Oliver Liecht McMickens La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks
Acadian Gas Pipeline Sys. v. McMickens 263 So. 3d 524 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
Red River Waterway Com'n v. Fredericks , , 83 (La.1990).
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Person 100 So. 3d 293 La. 2012
Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks
Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government v. Jeffery C. Person La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Criteria to be considered by the expropriating authority in deciding whether to expropriate include: [A]vailability of an alternate route, costs, environmental factors, long- range area planning, and safety considerations.” Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks
Acadian Gas Pipeline System v. Nunley 77 So. 3d 457 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
The issue was therefore whether *461 Acadian abused its discretion in selecting the route by acting “in bad faith or so capriciously or arbitrarily that its action was without an adequate determining principle or was unreasoned.” Red River Waterway Comm’n v. Fredericks, United States v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230 , 67 S.Ct.
ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad 35 So. 3d 192 La. 2010
Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks
Exxonmobil Pipeline Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad 15 So. 3d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
In addition, the Red River Waterway Commission sought to expropriate a strip of land in order to acquire a route for building a permanent access road to Lock and Dam Number 3.
City of Baton Rouge v. Johnca Properties, L.L.C. 873 So. 2d 693 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks
ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSP. SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2 v. Schneider 808 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Town of Broussard v. Ducrest 722 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
at 707-708 , quoting Red River Waterway Com’n v. Fredericks
Recreation and Park Com'n v. C & S DEVELOPMENT, INC. 714 So. 2d 706 La. 1998
(citing United State v. Carmack, 329 U.S. 230, 243 , 67 S.Ct.
Recreation & Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge v. C & S Development, Inc. 700 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Lieber v. State, Dept. of Transp. and Development 682 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
See, for example, State Dept. of Highways v. Olinkraft, Inc., (on rehearing)
Coleman v. Chevron Pipe Line Co. 673 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
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 v. Clark 670 So. 2d 493 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
CALCASIEU-CAMERON HOSP. SERV. v. Fontenot 628 So. 2d 75 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
v. Fredericks, and authorities cited therein.