Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Plaquemines Parish School Board v. Miller, 63 So. 2d 6.

28 citing documents.

West Jefferson Levee D. v. Coast Quality 640 So. 2d 1258 La. 1994
Louisiana Resources Co. v. Langlinais 383 So. 2d 1356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
584 , (1953), where the court stated: "Whilst the fact that a piece of property may, at some time, become available for residential subdivision purposes, can be taken into consideration in fixing its market value in expropriation proceedings, it should be made to appear that there is some reasonable expectation that it migh
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. James 321 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
584 , ], that while the fact that a piece of property may at some time become valuable for residential subdivision purposes may be taken into consideration in determining its market value in expropriation proceedings, to classify its best and highest use as subdivision purposes, it should be made to appear that there is log
Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Cantu 321 So. 2d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
584 , ; Recreation & Parks Commission, Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Loret, La.App., 203 [263] So.2d 467; State Dept. of Highways v. Mayer, La.App., ; and Recreation & Park Commission for East Baton Rouge Parish v. Drago, La.App, .
STATE, DEPT. OF HWYS. v. St. Tammany Homestead Ass'n 304 So. 2d 765 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
584 , ; State, Department of Highways v. Talbot, La.
Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Stipe 231 So. 2d 665 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
584 , .’ ” With regard to the contention on the part of the defendants that the value to be placed on the property expropriated should be the same as the average acreage value in the entire tract, i. e., one acre is just as valuable as any other acre whether it is part of a swamp or is high ground above flood level, we quot
State v. Jenkins 207 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
584 , (1953); Central Louisiana Electric Co., Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., v. Harang, Central Louisiana Electric Co., Inc., v. Burns, State of Louisiana, through Department of Highways
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Edward J. Gay Planting & Manufacturing Co. 200 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
State, Department of Highways v. Talbot 200 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Ristroph 200 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
584 , , and Central Louisiana Elec.
Louisiana Southern Railway Co. v. Gore 198 So. 2d 729 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
584 , (1953); State Through Dep’t (La.
Gulf States Utilities Co. v. Wright 195 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
584 , .” Plaintiff in his brief submits that an award of $2201.79 for the value of the servitude taken, and an additional award of $3110.00 as severance damages to defendant’s remaining property or a total of $5311.00 would adequately compensate said land owner.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Fontane 185 So. 2d 573 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
584 , ; State Through Department of Highways v. Boyer, La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Carlina 169 So. 2d 265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
584 , , and *268 Central Louisiana Elec.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Louisiana & Arkansas Railway Co. 165 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
584 , .” [ ] It was also declared in McMahon et al. v. St.
State v. Rapier 152 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Greater Baton Rouge Consol. Sewer Dist. v. Nelson 144 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
584 , ; Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Harang, La.App., .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Kemp 141 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Mire 140 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State v. Boyer 130 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
584 , , 8, it was said that: "Whilst the fact that a piece of property may, at some time, become available for residential subdivision purposes, can be taken into consideration in fixing its market value in expropriation proceedings, it should be made to appear that there is some reasonable expectation that it might be so d
Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Harang 131 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Shell Pipe Line Corp. v. Lone Star Estates, Inc. 127 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Varino 129 So. 2d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
584 , ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. R. E. E. De Montluzin Co., Inc., 1928, 166 La.
State v. Rownd 119 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1960
584 , : *290 "Whilst the fact that a piece of property may, at some time, become available for residential subdivision purposes, can be taken into consideration in fixing its market value in expropriation proceedings, it should be made to appear that there is some reasonable expectation that it might be so developed in the
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Bourgeois 116 So. 2d 888 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
584 , , the Supreme Court held that while in expropriation proceedings the availability of property for residential subdivision purposes can be taken into consideration in fixing its market value, it should appear that such development should take place in the not too far distant future.
Plaquemines Parish School Board v. La Grange Realty, Inc. 101 So. 2d 634 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
584 , ; Louisiana Highway Commission v. Guidry, 176 La.
Koerber v. City of New Orleans 100 So. 2d 461 La. 1958
584 , , we observed: “Whilst the fact that a piece of property may, at some time, become available for residential subdivision purposes, can be taken into consideration in fixing its market value in expropriation proceedings, it should be made to appear that there is some reasonable expectation that it might be so develo
Greater Baton Rouge Port Commission v. Watson 68 So. 2d 901 La. 1953