State v. Christ Baptist Church

11 Citing cases

  1. State, Department of Highways v. Mayer

    257 So. 2d 723 (La. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 9 times

    Relying on State, Through the Department of Highways v. Singletary, La. App., 185 So.2d 642, the trial court accorded greater weight to defendants' experts on the ground that they were more familiar with property values in the area in which subject property is situated. Relying on State, Through Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, La. App., 197 So.2d 83, the trial court held that severance damages are to be computed as of the time of trial. The court also held that an owner seeking an increase in damages must establish that severance damages deposited by the Department are less than severance damages alleged to have been sustained.

  2. State, Department of Highways v. McTeague

    244 So. 2d 263 (La. Ct. App. 1970)

    Expert testimony, however, may be disregarded when it unfavorably impresses the Court. State of Louisiana Through Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, La. App., 197 So.2d 83. Market value, the price paid by a willing and informed buyer to a willing and informed vendor, is best determined by the utilization of comparable sales where comparables are available. Reliance on criteria, such as the opinions of experts based on general knowledge and experience, is of secondary importance in determining market value when comparable sales are available. City of Alexandria v. Jones, 236 La. 612, 108 So.2d 528.

  3. State, Dotd v. Robertson Corp.

    563 So. 2d 1165 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 2 times

    Banner's introduction of evidence of lost business and profits does not exceed the scope of its pleadings. DOTD cites State, Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, 197 So.2d 83 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1967) in support of its position. Although that case correctly states the legal requisite for damage itemization in an expropriation suit, we find it is not applicable to the instant case.

  4. State, Dept, Hwys. v. New Orleans Term

    319 So. 2d 568 (La. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 4 times
    In New Orleans Terminal Co., the appraisers for plaintiff testified that the highest and best use of the property in question was to keep it as a railroad.

    State, Department of Highways v. Ourso, La.App., 294 So.2d 235; State Department of Highways v. Salassi, La.App., 244 So.2d 871. State, Department of Highways v. Ourso, supra, footnote 1; State, Dept. of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, La.App., 197 So.2d 83. One of defendant's two expert witnesses appraised Parcel 8-15 at $2.45 per square foot, while its other expert witness was of the opinion that parcel had a value of $1.90 per square foot.

  5. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS v. WAX

    295 So. 2d 833 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 19 times

    It is well settled in our law that where the experts differ, the trial judge is in a better position to determine their credibility and the weight to be accorded their testimony and his decision as to the valuation of property should not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be manifestly erroneous. State, Through Department of Highways v. Kennedy, supra; State, Through Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, 197 So.2d 83 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967). In light of our decision that the enhancement of value to the land resulting from the diamond design plan must be considered in determining just and adequate compensation for the part taken, we reject, as did the trial judge, the appraisals of Willet and Deano as being too low.

  6. State, Department of Hwys. v. Ourso

    294 So. 2d 235 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    In essence, the determination as to the value of expropriated property is a factual one and should not be disturbed on appeal unless the reviewing court is convinced such findings are obviously wrong. State, Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, 197 So.2d 83 (1st La.App. 1967) and Salassi, above. We now turn to the question of severance damages.

  7. State, Dept., Highways v. Beaird-Poulan

    292 So. 2d 842 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 10 times

    Much discretion is granted to the trial judge in evaluating and weighing the evidence given by expert witnesses, and his findings of fact, based on their testimony, will not be disturbed unless found to be clearly erroneous. State v. Ragusa, 234 La. 51, 99 So.2d 20 (1958); State, Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, 197 So.2d 83 (La.App., 1st Cir., 1967); Parish of East Baton Rouge v. S H Heating Company, 216 So.2d 360 (La.App., 1st Cir., 1968). Only two experts, one for the plaintiff and the other for the defendant, testified with reference to the value of the property taken and the severance damages sustained to the remainder.

  8. State, Department of Highways v. Beatty

    288 So. 2d 900 (La. Ct. App. 1974)   Cited 9 times

    Our review of the various appraisals discloses that the comparables used by defendant's experts and the adjustments made by Patecek and Lejeune are both reasonable and sincere. Where the experts differ as to the valuation of property, the trial judge is in a better position to determine their credibility and the weight to be accorded their testimony and his decision should not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be manifestly erroneous. State, Through Department of Highways v. Kennedy, supra; State, Through Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, 197 So.2d 83 (1st La.App. 1967). In the light of all the evidence, we can find no manifest error in the trial court's acceptance of the valuation placed upon the property by defendant's experts.

  9. State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Henderson Properties, Inc.

    264 So. 2d 348 (La. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 4 times

    Equally pertinent is the rule that where findings of fact are involved, the determinations of a trial court will not be disturbed unless shown to be manifestly erroneous. State Through Department of Highways v. Ragusa, 234 La. 51, 99 So.2d 20; State Through Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, La. App., 197 So.2d 83. Much discretion is granted a trial judge in the evaluation and weighing of expert testimony in expropriation proceedings and his findings of fact based on their testimony will not be disturbed unless found to be clearly erroneous. It is readily apparent that both LeJeune and Driggers conceded the variables they used in determining value on the income approach basis were judgment factors concerning which reasonable men might differ.

  10. State, Department of Highways v. Mondel

    262 So. 2d 560 (La. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    In this instance we think the Department of Highways should be afforded an opportunity to amend its petition and to present additional evidence as it seeks to do. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 1151; State through Department of Highways v. Baddock, 170 So.2d 5 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1964); State through Department of Highways v. Christ Baptist Church, 197 So.2d 83 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967). After this case was tried and decided by the trial judge, we rendered judgment in State, Department of Highways v. Medica, 257 So.2d 450 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1972); and State, Department of Highways v. Monsur, 258 So.2d 162 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1972).