Louisiana Ry. & Navigation Co. v. Sarpy
Citations
- 117 La. 156
- 41 So. 477
- 1906 La. LEXIS 663
Syllabus
<p>1. Expropriation — Procedure — Trial bx Jury — Quashing Venire.</p> <p>Where, in an expropriation proceeding, a jury is impaneled, without objection, and the case is continued to another day, under an agreement which contemplates that the defendant shall then answer, a motion to quash the venire (upon grounds which were known when the jury was impaneled) and dilatory exceptions come too late when offered upon the day thus fixed for the trial, and are properly overruled.</p> <p>2. Same — Compensation.</p> <p>Where, in an expropriation suit, a lump sum is claimed by way of damages, and the petition sets forth a number of distinct items, or elements, of damage, without speci£ying_ the proportion of the sum claimed which is to be attributed to either of them, testimony offered in support of the claim is properly rejected.</p> <p>3. Same — Evidence op Value — Opinion Evidence.</p> <p>In an expropriation proceeding, a person who resides, and owns, and has bought and sold, and knows of other sales of, property, in the vicinity of the property to be expropriated, is not disqualified to give an opinion as to the value of such property because of his statement to the effect that, in forming such opinion, he would consider, inter alia, the amount paid to him by the plaintiff in compromise of a proceeding for the expropriation of property owned by him and his wife in the same neighborhood; the possible influence of that circumstance upon his judgment being a question for the jury to consider.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — -For cases in point, see vol. 20, Cent. Dig. Evidence, § 2303.]</p> <p>4. Same.</p> <p>A witness who states that he has only a general knowledge of the value of certain property sought to be expropriated, derived from passing, on a railroad train, through the parish' in which the same is situated, and who admits ■that, for six years, he has not kept in touch with such property even in other parishes, is not qualified to enlighten the jury as to the value .-of the pro
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It most emphatically remains the duty of [federal courts] to ensure that an agency engage the arguments raised before it -- that it conduct a process of reasoned decision making.” (quoting K N Energy, Inc. v. F.E.R.C., 968 F.2d 1295, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Monroe
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.