Skip to main content
· 1/5/1903

Sauter v. Town of Vidalia

Citations

  • 110 La. 377
  • 34 So. 558
  • 1903 La. LEXIS 639

Syllabus

<p>LEVEE — RIGHT OP WAY — DISCRETION OP LEVEE COMMISSIONERS — PUBLIC NECESSITY.</p> <p>1. Where, in consequence of the moving back by the board of levee commissioners of the levee upon the front of a town, its front street at certain points is occupied by the new levee to within a few feet of the front lines of the houses, leaving open in front of them only space for a sidewalk, a resident of the town living further down upon the front of the town cannot mandamus the town authorities to compel the moving back of the houses left standing, in order to have a continuous open street just back of the levee along the whole front of the town, nor can he compel this removal himself. The determination of that matter is left to the discretion of the town authorities, to be exercised so as to promote the general public welfare and convenience. The private interests of a particular individual are forced to yield to those of the general public.</p> <p>2. While owners of property upon the river front may be forced to yield a right of way for the public, just back of the levee, they cannot be forced to do so upon the demand and for the benefit of a single individual where there is an existing way open for the public, though possibly not so convenient.</p> <p>3. Where the board of levee commissioners constructing a new line of levee upon the river front of a town, considering it to be necessary for levee purposes, has constructed as an approach to and crossing over the levee a ramp running diagonally along the inner line of the levee, a person owning property immediately in the rear of the ramp, who raised no objections to its being so constructed until after it had been made, cannot compel its removal, or insist upon its being made to run at right angles to the levee along the street forming one of his side lines, he having resisted at the time its being constructed in that way, particularly when he had an open space on his front sufficient for the passage of vehicles, and when, i

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that rebuttal expert “testimony must still be based upon reliable science, as required by Daubert.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nicholls

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.