This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| "1. The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; 2. There is payment of proper indemnity; 3. The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and 4. The right-of-way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest."[7] | |||||
|
2011-04-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| 4.The right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.[17] | |||||