Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Co., 118 So. 2d 364.

30 citing documents.

Mills v. State Through Dept. of Highways 416 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
See LRS 48:1(12), 302, 303, 344, , (1960), and statutes cited therein.
Recreation & Park Commission v. Gully & Associates Partnership No. 5 303 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
In the often quoted case of State of Louisiana through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , (1960), the Supreme Court laid down this guideline: “ [2] In expropriation suits the measure of compensation to be awarded for the property taken is the market value of that property — that is, the price which would be agreed upon at a voluntary sale between an owner willing to sell and a purchaser wil
City of New Iberia v. Yeutter 307 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
(1960): "No compensation is awarded for loss of actual rents based on a percentage of actual business being done."
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. CHURCHILL FARMS, INC. 292 So. 2d 183 La. 1974
State, , (1960); Parish of Iberia v. Cook, 238 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Crow 273 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
See Tolmas, supra; State, , (1960).
Recreation & Parks Commission, Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Loret 263 So. 2d 467 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
State of Louisiana, Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Barton 231 So. 2d 403 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Henry 192 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
State, Department of Highways v. Gielen 184 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
State of Louisiana through the Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Co., Inc., , ; Parish of Iberia v. Cook, 238 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Acme Brick Co. 162 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
In State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways, v. Hub Realty Co., Inc., , , the following language appears: “In expropriation proceedings, no compensation is awarded for business losses, even though the business is in actual operation at the time of the expropriation proceedings.
Central Louisiana Electric Company v. Fontenot 159 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. D. H. Sanders Realty Co. 155 So. 2d 24 La. 1963
Pertinent here is an observation contained in State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , that: “* * * If evidence of similar sales is not available, the value of the land expropriated must be determined by other means, generally the testimony of experts.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. O'Neal 150 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
State Through Department of Highways v. Stoer, 238 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hayes 150 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
1005 , .’ State of Louisiana Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , .
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Hayward 150 So. 2d 6 La. 1963
133 , and State Through Dept. of Highways v. Hub *1043 Realty Company, , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Davis 149 So. 2d 164 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
State, , ; Parish of Iberia v. Cook, 238 La.
Greater Baton Rouge Consol. Sewer Dist. v. Nelson 144 So. 2d 186 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
He cited State, , , and stated: "The only way the court can arrive at a fair value in these circumstances is to give due weight and consideration to the opinions expressed by appraisers who by experience and study are in position to know what the property is worth.
State v. Kurtz 143 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State Through Department of Highways v. Tolmas, 238 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bundy 143 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Madden 139 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
133 , (1960); State of Louisiana, Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , (1960).
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Gras 141 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
(1960); State of Louisiana through Department of Highways v. Glassell, 226 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Levy 136 So. 2d 35 La. 1961
1005 , .” State of Louisiana Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , .
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Fridge 135 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
State, Through Department *328 , ; State, Through Department of Highways v. Stoer, 238 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Ebrecht 135 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
393 , ; , ; State Through Department of Highways v. Stoer, 238 La.
State v. Gras 131 So. 2d 628 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
*631 State of Louisiana through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Co., 1960, , , and the cases cited therein.
Distinguished State v. Boyer 130 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
and State through Dept. of Highways v. Stoer, 238 La.
State v. Walker 129 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
In this connection, we find the following quotation from the case of State of Louisiana, through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, 1960, , , 368: "* * * The rule here is that the testimony of each expert should be given effect if that testimony appears to be well reasoned and sincere.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bourque 127 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
988 , , 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, , , it was held that: “The rule here is that the testimony of each expert should be given effect if that testimony appears to be well reasoned and sincere.
City of Shreveport v. Worley 121 So. 2d 506 La. 1960
State of Louisiana Through the Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., , , and cases there cited.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Central Realty Investment Co. 117 So. 2d 261 La. 1960
n March 31, 1954, just 35 days before the filing of this suit and while another expropriation suit was pending between plaintiff and Hub Realty Company, Inc. respecting certain other property sought to be expropriated within the same vicinity for use in the erection of the New Orleans-Pontchartrain Expressway (see State of Louisiana Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., La., , the Catholic Diocese sold to defendant corporation Squares Nos. 616, 617, 620 and 621, comprising