Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Havard, 118 So. 2d 131.

17 citing documents.

State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Roland J. Robert Distributor, Inc. 405 So. 2d 1174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
State, Department of Highways v. Thurman 231 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
State, Department of Highways v. Hunt 219 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Trosclair 207 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
State, , ; State, Through Department of Highways v. McDuffie, 240 La.
Gulf States Utilities Company v. Cormier 182 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
1036 , ; State, , ; and Housing Authority of New Orleans v. Boudwine, 224 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hayes 150 So. 2d 667 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
See, , ; Parish of Iberia v. Cook, 238 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Hayward 150 So. 2d 6 La. 1963
697 , ; , and State Through Dept. of Highways v. Hub *1043 Realty Company, 239 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Olivier 145 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
In the case decided by the Supreme Court of State, , , which has been adopted and followed in several subsequent decisions, the court held: “[1,2] Generally, the measure of compensation to be awarded in expropriation proceedings is the market value of the property — that is, the price which would be agreed upon at a voluntary sale between an owner w
State v. Kurtz 143 So. 2d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
State of Louisiana, , , State v. Tramuta, 234 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bundy 143 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Thus, we *787 find this pronouncement in State of Louisiana, through the Department of Highways v. Havard, 1960, , , 132: “ ‘The best guide in determining the market value to which the owner is entitled under the law in expropriation suits is evidence of sales of similar or comparable properties in the vicinity.
State v. Henderson 138 So. 2d 597 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Dept. of Highways, State Through, v. Havard, , ; Dept. of Highways, State Through, v. Ragusa, 234 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Madden 139 So. 2d 21 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
965 , (1960); State of Louisiana, , (1960); State of Louisiana, Through Department of Highways v. Hub Realty Company, Inc., 239 La.
State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Levy 136 So. 2d 35 La. 1961
See, , ; Parish of Iberia v. Cook, 238 La.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Richard 135 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
and cases cited therein.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Crockett 134 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
The best guide in determining the market value to which the owner is entitled under the law in expropriation suits is evidence of sales of similar (or comparable properties) in the vicinity, if there are any; (see State, , ).
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McNeely 130 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Thus, we find this pronouncement in State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Havard, 1960, , , 132: “The best guide in determining the market value to which the owner is entitled under the law in expropriation suits is evidence of sales of similar or comparable properties in the vicinity.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bourque 127 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961