In Re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that “there is a paucity of guidance in the law as to the proximity required so as to be a ‘neighbor’ for purposes of art. 667”
• holding plaintiffs living three miles away from the property allegedly causing the nuisance were not neighbors because the distance was “too attenuated” for the type of harm alleged—flood damage
• noting the “paucity of guidance in the law as to the proximity required so as to be a “neighbor” for purposes of art. 667”
• “‘No channel protection [was] included in the overall cost estimate of the project’” even though “‘erosion due to wave wash in open areas [was] expected.’”
• “‘No channel protection [was] included in the overall cost estimate of the project’” even though “‘erosion due to wave wash in open areas [was] expected.’”
• \ 'No channel protection [was] included in the overall cost estimate of the project’ ” even though \ 'erosion due to wave wash in open areas [was] expected.’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).