State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Luster

I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority decision which holds that the six pecan trees were both “crops” and “improvements” within the meaning of LSA-R.S. 48:218. For the reasons stated by the majority in State, through the Department of Highways v. Bernard, 271 So. 2d 303 (3rd Cir. 1972), I cannot agree that these trees were crops. I can agree that the pecan trees were “improvements” which were located on the land taken. They must be treated the same as buildings or other improvements.

Under the cited statute, the landowner is entitled to any damages which he suffered by…