State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Neyrey
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 21, 1972 260 So. 2d 739; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., May 2, 1957 95 So. 2d 186; La. Ct. App. 3d Cir., January 25, 1974 289 So. 2d 288
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Neyrey, 240 So. 2d 586 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970).
The holding in the court’s own words
We conclude that mover’s contention is without merit on the authority of the Supreme Court in State, Department of Highways v. Holmes, 251 La.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Cited by
- State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Neyrey 270 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Neyrey 260 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Holmes 251 La. 607
Opinion text
TAYLOR, Judge. This is a suit for expropriation by the State, through the Department of Highways, in order to obtain the land necessary for the construction of an overpass on Cleary Avenue to carry vehicular traffic across Interstate Highway 10. The value of the land actually expropriated was agreed upon by the parties. The sole issue determined by the trial court was whether severance damages should be allowed. After trial on the merits, the lower court rendered judgment in favor of defendants in the sum of $74,191.67 in addition to the amount already on deposit in the registry of the court together with interest. The State has appealed devolutively to this court. *587 The judgment of the lower court that exceeded the amount deposited by the Department was not an excess for the land taken but was for severance damages suffered by remaining lands. Mover contends that because of this fact the Department not having deposited this amount, the appeal should be dismissed. We conclude that mover’s contention is without merit on the authority of the Supreme Court in State, Department of Highways v. Holmes, 251 La. 607 , 205 So.2d 416 (1967) which held that the making of the deposit was not essential to the validity of the appeal. Motion to dismiss denied.