DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lewis v. City of Pineville, 170 So. 2d 5.

28 citing documents.

  • A.S. v. M.C. 685 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • As v. MC 685 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Gour v. Daray Motor Co., Inc. 373 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Moore v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. 364 So. 2d 630 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1978
  • State, Dept. of Highways v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co. 350 So. 2d 847 La. 1977
    State, Through the Department of Highways v. Macaluso, supra; State, Through the Department of Highways v. Baddock, La.App., (1964), writs denied, 247 La.
  • State Through Dept. of Highways v. Ruckstuhl 348 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
    However, the trial court citing State, (La.App.
  • Guste v. Demars 330 So. 2d 123 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • State v. Calloway 324 So. 2d 801 La. 1976
    (1964); State v. Keife, 165 La.
  • State v. Pickett 325 So. 2d 252 La. 1975
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hunter 309 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
    In effect, the Department contends that the cases of State, , cert.
  • State, Department of Highways v. Mondel, Inc. 262 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • State, Department of Highways v. Mayer 257 So. 2d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    The Department maintained, on authority of State v. Baddock, La.App., , that it has the right to show that severance damages deposited are not in fact due, either by amendment of its petition or the production of competent testimony establishing such fact.
  • State Ex Rel. Department of Highways v. Bagwell 255 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
    48:453; Dakin and Klein, Eminent Domain in Louisiana, p. 165; State Through Dept. of Highways v. Marks, La.App., (4th Cir. 1966); State Through Dept. of Highways v. Baddock, La.App., (1st Cir. 1965), writ refused, 247 La.
  • State, Department of Highways v. Thurman 231 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Hunt 231 So. 2d 563 La. 1970
    The Court of Appeal granted a rehearing to defendant but, strangely enough, limited its consideration “to the question of defendant’s entitlement to amount of severance damages deposited by plaintiff.” On rehearing defendant urged that, (1964), he was entitled to recover the $1,878 deposited by the Department as severance damages because the latter did not offer to amend its estimate of such damages at or before the trial and that all evidence pertaining to the absence of severance damages was a
  • Distinguished State v. Garner 229 So. 2d 719 La. 1969
    201 , (1954), , (1964), which were all decided before our present Code of Criminal Procedure was adopted and which I find both distinguishable and inapposite.
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Browne 224 So. 2d 51 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
  • State, Department of Highways v. Hunt 219 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
    The application for a rehearing is based on our previous decision of State of Louisiana, .
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Bassemier 203 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    ., (1960) the Court held: To the same effect see State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Richard, La.App., (1961) ; State, Through Dept, of Highways v. Kurtz, La.App., (1962); State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Vallon, La.App., (1966); and to the same effect as to severance damages, see State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Baddock, La.App., (1965).
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Jacques 197 So. 2d 414 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    (See State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways v. Baddock, La.App., ; see also Central Louisiana Electric Company Inc. v. Dunbar, La.App., ; State of Louisiana, ).
  • State, Dept. of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church 197 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
    However, as stated by us in State, Through Dept. of Highways v. Baddock, La.App., , "* * * it is incumbent upon the Department to so notify the defendant by filing an amended pleading setting forth this revised sum * * *."
  • State v. Young 193 So. 2d 243 La. 1966
  • State v. Young 193 So. 2d 243 La. 1966
  • State v. Johnson 186 So. 2d 565 La. 1966
    and authorities there cited.
  • State v. Marcell 183 So. 2d 341 La. 1966
  • State v. Brown 180 So. 2d 410 La. 1965
  • State v. Lee 172 So. 2d 678 La. 1965
    711 , , , , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La.
  • State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Baddock 170 So. 2d 867 La. 1965