Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. William T. Burton Industries, Inc., 222 So. 2d 67.

17 citing documents.

STATE, DOTD v. Dietrich 544 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
3rd Cir.1969), writ refused
STATE, DOTD v. Fakouri 541 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
3rd Cir.1969), writ refused
Burdin v. Board of Com'rs for Atchafalaya Basin Levee Dist. 533 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
3rd Cir.), writ denied, , (La.
State, Dept. of Trans. & Dev. v. Sonnier 503 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
State, Department of Highways v. William T. Burton Industries, Inc., writ denied, , (1969); (where large attorney's fees were granted in comparison to the award).
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANS. & DEVELOPMENT v. Jacob 491 So. 2d 138 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
3rd Cir.1969), writ refused
STATE, DEPT. OF TRANSP. AND DEVELOPMENT v. Shannon-Page Inv. Co. 478 So. 2d 702 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
3 Cir.1969), writ refused, , (1969).
VALLEY ELEC. MEMBERSHIP CORP., INC. v. Wallace 465 So. 2d 986 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
3rd Cir.1969), writ den., , (1969).
STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. LeBlanc 388 So. 2d 412 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
3rd Cir. 1969), writ refused , (1969).
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. McInnis 360 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
3rd Cir. 1969), writ refused , (1969).
STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS v. Romano 343 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
State v. Wells 308 So. 2d 774 La. 1975
3d Cir. 1969), certiorari denied , (1969) ("* * * no error of law * * *.").
City of Baton Rouge v. Allied Chemical Corporation 308 So. 2d 295 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
App.1st, 1971), writ refused, , (1969).
State, Department of Highways v. Anselmo 301 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Inc., La.App.1969, , writ refused, , ; see also Tate, Legal Criteria of Damages and BenefitsThe Measurement of Taking-Caused Damages to Untaken Property, 1971, 31 La.L.Rev.
Greater Baton Rouge Airport District v. Carrick 258 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
3rd Cir.1969), writ refused, , (1969), the trier of fact is not required to accept or to reject testimony of each expert witness in toto, but instead has the right to evaluate the weight to be given to the testimony of each witness in an expropriation case, and also has the right to make factual determinations as to which of the fact
Collins Pipeline Company v. New Orleans East, Inc. 250 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
Inc., La.App., (3rd Cir. 1969), writ refused , (1969); Sterkx v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Schexnaidre 247 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
v. William T. Burton Indus., Inc., (La.App., 3d Cir.1969; , [1969] — writs denied): “Both parties contend that the trier of fact is not authorized to determine the severance damages in an amount to which no expert testified, by rejecting the precise amounts to which each expert had testified.
State v. Salassi 244 So. 2d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
3rd Cir. 1969), writ refused, , (1969).