Lamar Corp. v. Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner

How courts have described this case

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

• evidence of income admissible because intrinsic to land, not business profit
• error in excluding evidence of rental income, relevant to value of leasehold interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates
  Texas Supreme Court· 2009-11-20· cited 267×
• STATE ex rel. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION v. LAMAR ADVERTISING OF OKLAHOMA, INC.
  Supreme Court of Oklahoma· 2014-06-03· cited 24×
• City of Wichita v. Denton
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 2013-01-04· cited 18×
• State v. Central Expressway Sign Associates
  Texas Supreme Court· 2009-06-26
• AGCS Marine Ins. v. Arlington County
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 2017-06-15

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ryan v. Davis
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1959-06-22· cited 36×
• Stanpark Realty Corp. v. City of Norfolk
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1958-01-20· cited 27×
• Fonticello Mineral Springs Co. v. City of Richmond
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1927-03-17· cited 23×
• Lamar Corp. v. City of Richmond
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1991-03-01· cited 14×
• Exxon Corp. v. M & Q HOLDING CORP.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1980-08-28· cited 10×
• Anderson v. Chesapeake Ferry Co.
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1947-06-09· cited 8×
• State Highway Commissioner v. Reynolds
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1966-01-17· cited 7×
• Foodtown, Inc. v. State Highway Commissioner
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1973-04-23· cited 6×
• Fairfax County Park Authority v. Virginia Department of Transportation
  Supreme Court of Virginia· 1994-02-25· cited 3×