Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. & DEV. v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 669 So. 2d 1172.

15 citing documents.

Broxlin T. Coleman Versus Ace Property & Casualty Ins. Co. / Esis & Brock Services, LLC La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
St. Bernard Port v. Violet Dock Port, Inc. 255 So. 3d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
3/1/96), , 1176 : *68 "[A] trier of fact does not have to accept in toto the testimony of any one group or group witnesses."
ST. BERNARD PORT, HARBOR & TERMINAL DISTRICT v. VIOLET DOCK PORT, INC., LLC St. Bernard Port, Harbor & … 239 So. 3d 243 La. 2018
3/1/96), (“[A] trier of fact does not have to accept in toto the testimony of any one group or group witnesses.”).14 Further, this error was prejudicial to Violet insofar as the trial court set just compensation in the exact amount put forward by the Port’s experts.
In re Triola 236 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana, dept.of Trans. & Develop. v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Knoll & Dufour Lands, LLC 158 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State, Dept. of Transportation v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 95-1261 (La.3/1/96), .
Board of Supervisors v. 1732 Canal Street, L.L.C. 159 So. 3d 470 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
& Development v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 95-1261 (La.3/1/96), , and (2) it must be replaced because the plaintiff cannot discern how the jury reached its verdict of valuation.
Adams v. Grefer 99 So. 3d 1083 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
& Development v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 95-261 (La.3/1/96); .
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Biscomb 94 So. 3d 193 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 95-1261 (La.3/1/96), .
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Lauricella Land Co. 65 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
& Development v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 95-261, pp. 8-9 (La.3/1/96); , the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed the standard of review for a matter of this sort by stating the following: Our rules of manifest error state that before a factfinder’s verdict may be reversed, there must be evidence within the record, such that a reasonable factual basis does not exist for the verdict, a
State, DOTD v. McKeithen 976 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
48:453 A; Exxon Pipeline Co. v. Hill, 2000-2535 (La.5/15/01), ; State v. Schwegmann Westside Expy., 95-1261 (La.3/1/96), .
Scott v. Dauterive Hosp. Corp. 851 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
v. Schwegmann Expressway, 95-1261 (La.3/1/96); .
Westmoreland v. City of Natchitoches 771 So. 2d 715 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc. 95-1261 (La.3/1/96), .
BOARD OF COM'RS OF TENSAS v. Crawford 731 So. 2d 508 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
& Development v. Schwegmann Westside Expressway, Inc., 95-1261 (La.3/1/96); .
State, Department of Transportation & Development v. Latiolais 690 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996