qosacertified.blogg.se - Hooper v. hero lands company, 2015-0929 (la. app. 4 cir. 3/30/16)

Furthermore, whoever is declared the rightful owner will obtain the funds BCDD put in the court's registry. BCDD filed the expropriation petition against both the Hoopers and Hero Lands Company thus, both parties will be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. Regardless of who owns the property, BCDD still has the right to file an expropriation suit.

The Hoopers contend that Terrebonne is distinguishable from this case because in Terrebonne there was only one person claiming ownership and possession, where as in this case two parties are claiming ownership.

4th Cir.1980) (tenant could not prevent the filing of an eviction suit through an injunction)). Firemen's Charitable and Benevolent Association of New Orleans, 386 So.2d 1053 (La.App. In so finding, the appellate court held that the police jury could not be enjoined from bringing a suit that it had a right to bring. The appellate court, however, found that the Louisiana constitution and laws grant parish governing authorities the power to expropriate private property for public purposes. On appeal, the Kellys argued that the injunction prohibited the police jury from disturbing their peaceable possession by filing an expropriation suit.

Before the expiration of the six month period, the police jury filed an expropriation suit without seeking modification of the injunction. The Kellys filed suit and were successful in having their possession recognized, having the police jury enjoined from disturbing their possession, and having the police jury ordered to fill in the ditch within six months. In Terrebonne, the parish police jury failed to secure a right-of-way before excavating a drainage canal over the Kellys' land. The facts in the instant case are similar to the facts in the Terrebonne case.8/15/12), 99 So.3d 74, 80 citing South East Auto Dealers Rental Ass'n, Inc.

“That broad standard is, of course, based upon a conclusion that the trial court committed no error of law and was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in making a factual finding that was necessary to the proper exercise of its discretion.” Yokum v.

The appellate court should not overturn the dissolution of a preliminary injunction absent a clear abuse of the trial court's great discretion.