Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State Through DOTD v. Estate of Davis, 572 So. 2d 39.

50 citing documents.

Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal District v. Tuan Nguyen La. 2026
St. Bernard Port v. Violet Dock Port, Inc. 255 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
ST. BERNARD PORT, HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT v. VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC., LLC St. Bernard Port, Harbor & … 239 So. 3d 243 La. 2018
Because “expropriation proceedings are in derogation of the right of individuals to own property, the law governing these proceedings must be strictly construed against the expropriating authority.” (La.
Board of Supervisors v. Villavaso 183 So. 3d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015
Moreover, “[s'Jince expropriation proceedings derogate from the right of individuals to own property, the law goy-erning these proceedings is strictly construed against the expropriating authority.”
Borgnemouth Realty Co. v. Parish of St. Bernard 141 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
v. Estate of Davis, (“In expropriation proceedings, much discretion is granted to the trier of fact.”).
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Monteleone 106 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Alderdice v. Board of Supervisors 107 So. 3d 7 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
Heirs of Morris v. Simpson 997 So. 2d 659 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
v. Estate of Davis, (hereinafter the "Estate of Davis" ), addressed the conflict between Articles 734 and 5091.
Newman Marchive Partnership, Inc. v. City of Shreveport 979 So. 2d 1262 La. 2008
Newman v. City of Shreveport 962 So. 2d 1075 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
City of Shreveport v. Noel Estate, Inc. 941 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that "[l]egal interest is a matter of substantive law and a change in the law that alters an award of legal interest should not be given retroactive effect unless the legislature so provides."
Williams v. Unopened Succession of Nichols 912 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
the court stated: The suit by the Department against the Estate of Giles Davis was in effect a suit against the succession; therefore, the proper party defendant was not an attorney at law appointed by the court to represent the Estate, but a succession representative.
Mark Taylor v. State of La, Thru the Dotd La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
v. Estate of Davis, ), cert.
Taylor v. STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. 879 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
v. Estate of Davis, (La.
Avenal v. State, Dept. of Natural Resources 858 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Concha Chemical Pipeline v. Schwing 835 So. 2d 543 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Mid-South Environmental Services, Inc. v. Estate of San-Didge 828 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
City of Shreveport v. Chanse Gas Corp. 794 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
ST. TAMMANY PARISH HOSP. SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2 v. Schneider 808 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Melara v. Government Employees Insurance 777 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
v. Estate of Davis, the court noted that, in enforcing an obligation against the decedent’s estate, it is the plaintiffs duty to determine whether the succession had been opened and, if not, to initiate proceedings to open the succession and have the proper succession representative named as the defendant.
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. LeBlanc 763 So. 2d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill 763 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Edmundson Bros. v. Montex Drilling Co. 731 So. 2d 1049 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
See also State through Department of Transportation and Development v. Estate of Giles Davis [ (1990) ], supra.
BOARD OF COM'RS OF TENSAS v. Crawford 731 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
STATE, DOTD v. August Christina & Bros., Inc. 716 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
5th Cir.1990), affirmed in part, amended in part, reversed in part and remanded, State Dept. of Transp.
Dickerson v. Blair 705 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
art 3249; -43 (La.1990); (La.App.
STATE DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Scramuzza 673 So. 2d 1249 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
5th Cir. 1990), affirmed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part and remanded, State Dept. Of Transp.
Town of Jonesville v. Griffing 670 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
The Town of Jonesville cites State, Dept, (La.App.
Minden Bank & Trust Co. v. Childs 658 So. 2d 216 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
v. Estate of Davis, (La.App.
McClendon v. State, Dept. of Transp. 642 So. 2d 157 La. 1994
[1] Later, however, this Court granted writs and ruled on the same issue of law on December 3, 1990 in State, holding that the 1988 amendment to Section 455 should not be applied retroactively.
West Jefferson Levee D. v. Coast Quality 640 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
STATE, DOTD v. McMillion Dozer Service 639 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
4th Cir.1990), writ denied, -80 (La.1990)
STATE, DOTD v. Hellenic, Inc. 636 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Saucier v. State, Department of Transportation & Development 635 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Excessive Compensation In its last assignment of error, the state alleges that “the evidence does not support compensation in the amount awarded by the trial judge.” Initially, we note that the Louisiana Supreme Court, stated: In expropriation proceedings, much discretion is granted to the trier of fact.
Rivet v. STATE, DOTD 635 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
Initially, we note that the Louisiana Supreme Court, stated: In expropriation proceedings, much discretion is granted to the trier of fact.
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Sanders 628 So. 2d 1207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
held that a 1988 amendment to R.S.
Trans Louisiana Gas Co. v. Heard 629 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Red River Waterway Com'n v. Fry 628 So. 2d 38 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
4th Cir.1990), writ denied, overruled on other grounds
McClendon v. State, Dept. of Transportation & Development 626 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
One month later, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the amendment to LSA-R.S.
West Jefferson Levee Dist. v. Coast Quality Const. Corp. 620 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
LeBlanc v. State ex rel. Department of Transportation & Development 615 So. 2d 365 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Smith v. Matthews 611 So. 2d 1377 La. 1993
Compare State of Louisiana
STATE, DOTD v. Scramuzza 608 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
5th Cir. 1990), affirmed in part, amended in part, reversed in part and remanded, State Dept. of Transp.
STATE, DOTD v. Williamson 597 So. 2d 439 La. 1992
STATE, DOTD v. Dietrich 598 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
In State, our Supreme Court determined that this amendment was substantive *652 and, as such, "...
Jeffries v. Estate of Pruitt 598 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
the State initiated an expropriation proceeding against the Estate of Giles Davis and petitioned the court to appoint an attorney at law to represent the estate.
State Department of Transportation & Development v. Estate of McDade 592 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
In February 1991, the court appointed attorney filed a pleading claiming that the named defendants were improper under the holding in State through DOTD v. The *1374 Estate of Davis, and seeking to dismiss the entire suit as “improvidently filed.” The trial court agreed that the Estates of Arthur McDade and Bernard McDade were improper defendants.
State, DOTD v. Tatman 587 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
This issue was recently decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State, which stated as follows, at page 44: “In the absence of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only.
State, Department of Transportation & Development v.Griffith 585 So. 2d 629 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State, Department of *634 State, Department of Transportation and Development v. Hammons, supra.
STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Chambers Inv. Co. 576 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991