Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Louisiana Highway Commission v. Grey, 2 So. 2d 654.

48 citing documents.

State, Department of Highways v. Modica 514 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State, Dept. of Highways v. Bitterwolf 415 So. 2d 196 La. 1982
1016 , (1948); , (1941); M. Dakin & M. Klein, supra, at 86-88; Tate, supra, at 436-37.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Moseley 390 So. 2d 951 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
(1941), general benefits were defined as “those which are shared alike by all property owners in the neighborhood or community” and special benefits as “those affecting a particular estate by reasons of its direct relationship with the improvement.” Applying this ruling, the court in State, Dept. of High
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Gormley 357 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
If, as a result of constructing any new work, the remaining land or part of it is left fronting on a road or street, and the land fronting the road or street is more desirable and more valuable because of the frontage, the advantage thus gained is a special or peculiar benefit, and damages to the remaining property may be offset by such benefits.’ “ , at 660-661 (1941), and cases cited therein; LSA-R.S.
State, Department of Highways v. Anderson 356 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
(1941); State, Department of Highways v. Westport Development Company, Inc.
State, Dept. of Highways v. Eubanks 345 So. 2d 533 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
at 660-661 (1941), and cases cited therein; LSA-R.S.
STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Westport Development Co., Inc. 332 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Degueyterre 326 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
(1941), our Supreme Court said: “If, as a result of constructing new work, the remaining land or part of it is left fronting on a road or street, and the land fronting the road or street is more desirable and more valuable because of the frontage, the advantage thus gained is a special or peculiar benefi
State, Department of Highways v. Tyler 326 So. 2d 349 La. 1976
STATE, DEPT. OF HWYS. v. Society for Propagation of Faith 321 So. 2d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(Louisiana Highway Comm., ) 2 So.2d (654) 660.'" We feel that the award of the lower court was fair and just and we find no error in its decision.
State, Dept. of Highways v. Port Properties, Inc. 316 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Jacobsen 306 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
State, Dept. of Highways v. Beaird-Poulan, Inc. 292 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Beatty 288 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
As stated by the Grey decision, cited above “* * * the citizen whose property is taken cannot be compelled to bear more of the cost of the public improvements and general benefits resulting therefrom than is borne by other property owners whose property is neither taken nor damaged for the public purpose.” [Louisiana Highway Comm., ] 2 So.2d [654] 660.’ ” “Deano and Lejeune testified that if on the date of trial (Feb.
State, Department of Highways v. Crow 286 So. 2d 353 La. 1973
278 , (1959); , (1941); Louisiana Highway Commission v. Hoell, 174 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Snider 276 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
State, Dept. of Highways v. Trippeer Realty Corp. 276 So. 2d 315 La. 1973
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Stegemann 269 So. 2d 480 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1973
Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Harrison 260 So. 2d 106 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
The Supreme Court has summarized the general rules relating to severance damages and increments in value to property as a , .
State, Department of Highways v. Mayer 257 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Neyrey 260 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1941), the Supreme Court distinguished between general and special benefits.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Brandt 246 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Thomas & Warner, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, supra; , (1941); (La.App.
State, Department of Highways v. Thurman 231 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Moreover, , (1941) and quoted approvingly in State through Department of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Company, 238 La.
Louisiana Power and Light Company v. Lasseigne 220 So. 2d 462 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
2d 351 ; State Through Department of Highways v. Boyer, La.App., ; East Baton Rouge Parish Council v. Koller, La.App., ; , ; Louisiana Highway Commission v. Hoell, 174 La.
State, Dept. of Hys. v. William T. Burton Indus., Inc. 219 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1969
(1941), our Supreme Court authoritatively set forth the controlling principles and rationale dispositive of the issue before us. In pertinent summary, and in distinguishing general *841 and special benefits, our Supreme Court stated, : "When part of a tract of land is taken for the public use
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Martin 219 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
485 (1932); , (1941) and State v. Cooper et al., 213 La.
Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Shipp 205 So. 2d 101 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
(1941); State Through Department *109
Belgarde v. City of Natchitoches 156 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
City of Natchitoches v. Cox, La.App.
State v. Rapier 152 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Domino v. Domino, 233 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hayes 150 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
East Baton Rouge Parish Council v. Koller, La.App., ; East Baton Rouge Parish v. Edwards, La.App., ; 18 Am.Jur.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Circle Center Corp. 148 So. 2d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
the Supreme Court said: “When part of a tract of land is taken for the public use, it frequently happens that the construction and maintenance of the public work for which the land is taken inflicts some injury upon the remainder of the tract or parcel.
City of Natchitoches v. Cox 135 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
East Baton Rouge Parish Council v. Roller, La.App., ; East Baton Rouge Parish v. Edwards, La.App., ; 18 Am.Jur.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ebrecht 135 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Louisiana Power and Light Company v. Tricou, La.App., .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ebrecht 135 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
988 , ; Louisiana Highway Commission vs. Gray, , ; State Through Department of Highways vs. Ragusa, 234 La.
State v. Williams 131 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
(The appellant also suggests that it is entitled to an offset against severance damages for the increment in value that will accrue to the remainder of the defendants' property through the construction of the service road, , , Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Edwards, La.App.
State v. Gras 131 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Louisiana Highway Commission v. Grey, 1941, , ; State v. Cooper, 1948, 213 La.
State v. Boyer 130 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
1016 , ; , , as authority therefor.
St. Bernard Parish School Board v. Carolyn Park, Inc. 131 So. 2d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Louisiana Highway Commission v. Grey, 1941, , .
Town of Golden Meadow v. Duet 121 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
State Through Dept, of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Co., 238 La.
Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Edwards 119 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
278 , ; , ; East Baton Rouge Parish Council v. Koller, La.App.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Co. 117 So. 2d 261 La. 1960
the Court said: “If, as a result of constructing new work, the remaining land or part of it is left fronting on a road or street, and the land fronting the road or street is more desirable and more valuable because of the frontage, the advantage thus gained is a special or peculiar benefit, and da
City of New Orleans v. Giraud 115 So. 2d 349 La. 1959
Louisiana Highway Commission v. Grey, 1941, , ; State v. Cooper, 1948, 213 La.
East Baton Rouge Parish Council v. Koller 94 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
The reason is that the citizen whose property is taken cannot be compelled to bear more of the cost of the public improvement and general benefits resulting therefrom than is borne by other property owners whose property is neither taken nor damaged for the public purpose," , at page 660; Oleck, Damages to Persons and Property, Section 225; 29 C.J.S., Verbo Eminent Domain, § 183b, p. 1064.
Thomas & Warner, Inc. v. City of New Orleans 89 So. 2d 885 La. 1956
State v. Cooper, 213 La.
State v. Cooper 36 So. 2d 22 La. 1948
State v. Barbe 24 So. 2d 372 La. 1945
Westwego Canal & Terminal Co. v. Louisiana Highway Commission 9 So. 2d 389 La. 1942
The decree was handed down on April 28, 1941, and the rehearing was denied on May 26, 1941, , .
Housing Authority of Shreveport v. Green 8 So. 2d 295 La. 1942