Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Housing Authority v. Boudwine, 71 So. 2d 541.

70 citing documents.

Quinones v. US Fidelity and Guaranty Co. 630 So. 2d 1303 La. 1994
City of Lafayette v. Dore 460 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
SEVERANCE DAMAGES: LOSS OF TREES AND SHRUBBERY In addition to compensation for property taken, , (1954); Louisiana Power & (La.App.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Shuff 332 So. 2d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Dakin and Klein, Eminent Domain in Louisiana, pp. 227-228; , (1954); Rapides Parish School Board v. Nassif, 232 La.
Recreation & Park Commission v. Gully & Associates Partnership No. 5 303 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Domino v. Domino, 233 La.
Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Conger 307 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
See, also: , (1954); Louisville & N. R. Co. v. R. E. E. de Montluzin Co., 166 La.
City of Kenner v. Progressive Brokerage Co. 285 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Lafayette Airport Commission v. Roy 265 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Henderson Properties, Inc. 264 So. 2d 348 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Bagwell 255 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
The rule in Louisiana for determining what weight is accorded the opinion of a , (1954) to be that: "* * * the opinion of each witness qualified and accepted as an expert should be given effect if and when it appears to be well grounded from the standpoint of sincerity and good reasoning.
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Dixon 201 So. 2d 346 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1967
Recreation & Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton Rouge v. German 202 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
165 , ; , ; Efurd v. City of Shreveport (1958) 235 La.
State, Dept. of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church 197 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
718 , ; , ; ; State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Levy, 242 La.
State, Department of Highways v. Singletary 185 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
State, Sabine River Authority v. Salter 184 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Gulf States Utilities Company v. Cormier 182 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
State, Department of Highways v. Cockerham 182 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
State through Department of Highways v. Ragusa, 234 La.
City of Monroe v. Nastasi 175 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1965
State, Department of Highways v. Dodge 168 So. 2d 430 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Fontenot 159 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
718 , ; , ; State, Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, 239 La.
State v. Rapier 152 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. D. H. Sanders Realty Co. 155 So. 2d 24 La. 1963
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hayes 150 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Domino v. Domino, 233 La.
Beatty v. Vining 147 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
Domino v. Domino, 233 La.
Louisiana Power and Light Company v. BOUCHEL 143 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Greater Baton Rouge Consol. Sewer Dist. v. Nelson 144 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State of Louisiana Through Dept. of Highways v. Glassell, 226 La.
State v. Lewis 142 So. 2d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State Through Department of Highways v. Ragusa, 234 La.
State v. Kurtz 143 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State v. Landry, 219 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bundy 143 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Thus, it was said in Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 1954, , , 543: “ ‘The greater part of the evidence adduced at the trial consisted of opinions of experts, and on them the decision herein hinges.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Chappell 137 So. 2d 432 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Brinkmann, 224 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Levy 136 So. 2d 35 La. 1961
Domino v. Domino, 233 La.
State v. Clarke 135 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ebrecht 135 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ebrecht 135 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Housing Authority of New Orleans vs. Boudwin, , ; Louisiana Highway Commission vs. Gray, 197 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Crockett 134 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
543 the court stated: “The greater part of the evidence adduced at the trial consisted of opinions of experts, and on them the decision herein hinges.
State v. Gras 131 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
In support of this contention, we have been cited to the following cases: Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 1954, , ; State v. Landry, 1951, 219 La.
State v. Crockett 131 So. 2d 129 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Burns 131 So. 2d 390 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
988 , ; , ; City of Shreveport v. Jones, 236 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McNeely 130 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Thus, it was said in Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 1954, , , 543: “The greater part of the evidence adduced at the trial consisted of opinions of experts, and on them the decision herein hinges.
State v. Walker 129 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 1954, , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bahry 129 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Givens 129 So. 2d 468 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 1954, , , and the numerous cases therein cited.
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Tricou 128 So. 2d 24 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bourque 127 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
718 , , said: “ * * * the rule that consideration must be given to the opinions of all of *787 the experts applies only where the opinions are well grounded from the standpoint of good reasoning.” , , the court said: “Moreover, the opinion of each witness qualified and accepted as an expert should be given, effect if and when it appears to be well grounded from the standpoints of sincerity and good reasoning.” Also, in State, Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Co., 239 La.
Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Morehouse Realty Co. 126 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
While such sales may be considered in fixing the value of the property herein expropriated ( , ; State, Through Department of Highways v. Hebert, 227 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. McDuffie 123 So. 2d 93 La. 1960
668 , ; Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 1954, , ; Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Brinkmann, 1953, 224 La.
Town of Golden Meadow v. Duet 121 So. 2d 288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
And most important in determining the market value are sales of similar or comparable properties in the vicinity.’ , , and cases therein cited * * * Also see City of Alexandria v. Jones, 236 La.
State v. Rownd 119 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1960
We have given consideration to several decisions in which the Supreme Court has set forth rules which should be followed in arriving at values for purposes of expropriation, , ; Domino v. Domino, 233 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Co. 117 So. 2d 261 La. 1960
657 , ; , and many other cases too numerous to mention) and that sales of similar and comparable property within the vicinity offer the best guide in determining the market value to which the owner is entitled.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Esnard 117 So. 2d 52 La. 1960
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Co. 118 So. 2d 364 La. 1960
Domino v. Domino, 233 La.