Magness v. Caddo Parish Police Jury

4 Citing cases

  1. Langford v. Calcasieu Par. Police Jury

    396 So. 2d 956 (La. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    Nevertheless, I agree with the majority that there was a prior nonconforming "lawful use" of two trailer spaces. In Magness v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, 318 So.2d 117 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1975) the original opinion used a "substantial completion" test under facts involving a mobile home park. However, on rehearing the court recognized that the ordinance did not provide a "substantial completion" test.

  2. Smith C.P.C. v. Hiwassee Vil.

    No. M2007-02048-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2008)   Cited 1 times

    We find that the evidence preponderates against the trial court's finding that Mr. Sanders' efforts represented only preparations. Our conclusion is consistent with cases in other jurisdictions involving mobile home parks as nonconforming uses. Magness v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, 318 So. 2d 117, 120 (La.Ct.App. 1975) (nonconforming use established: site cleared, plans drawn, water wells drilled, spaces for two or three mobile homes made available, serviced with electricity, septic tanks); Perkins v. Joint City-County Planning Comm'n, 480 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Ky.Ct.App. 1972) (nonconforming use established for combined project of converting motel to apartments and constructing trailer court: $10,000 spent on conversion of motel; negotations with engineers, contractors, utilities, etc. regarding development of mobile home park; $2,000 spent developing property); Craig v. City of Lilburn, 177 S.E.2d 75 (Ga. 1970) (retroactive application of zoning ordinance would be unconstitutional due to vested right in proposed mobile home park; property owner had made "substantial expenditures of time, effort and money," including grading, installing septic tank); State ex rel. Howland Twp. Trustees v. Bailes, 179 N.E.2d 527 (Ohio Ct.App. 1961) (nonconforming use established: two house trailers on property; electrici

  3. Petersen v. Town of Abita Springs

    417 So. 2d 3 (La. Ct. App. 1982)

    In Clay there was no zoning ordinance in force at the time of the application for the requested permit; while in the present case, the Abita Springs Zoning Ordinance had been adopted and was in effect at the time Petersen requested the issuance of a liquor license and permit for a lounge. Magness v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, 318 So.2d 117 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1975), is another case where the nonconforming use was commenced prior to the effectiveness of the particular zoning ordinance. Such is not the situation in the case before the Court.

  4. City of West Monroe v. Ouachita Ass'n

    402 So. 2d 259 (La. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 12 times

    Interpretation of the zoning ordinance must begin with the well-recognized rule that zoning ordinances are in derogation of the rights of private ownership and, therefore, must be strictly construed in favor of the use proposed by the owner. Wright v. DeFatta, 244 La. 251, 152 So.2d 10 (1963); Carrere v. Orleans Club, 214 La. 303, 37 So.2d 715 (1948); City of Kenner v. Kenner Academy, 373 So.2d 197 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979); Magness v. Caddo Parish Police Jury, 318 So.2d 117 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1975); Henderson v. Zoning Appeals Board of Jefferson Parish, 328 So.2d 175 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 331 So.2d 474 (1976); Smith v. City of Alexandria, 300 So.2d 561 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1974), writ denied 303 So.2d 186, 187; State ex rel. Time Saver Stores v. Board of Zon. Adj., 261 So.2d 273 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1972), writ refused 262 La. 311, 263 So.2d 47 (1972); Roberts v. Jefferson Parish Council, 235 So.2d 131 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), writ denied 256 La. 819, 239 So.2d 345 (1970). In Magness, supra, this court made the following statement: