State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation & Development v. Mark Eric Milligan

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: July 3, 2025
• Docket: 2025 CW 0439
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA, NO. 2025 CW 0439 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (PAGE 1 OF 2) AND DEVELOPMENT

VERSUS

MARK ERIC MILLIGAN JULY 03, 2025 In Re: State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and

Development, applying for supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 698060.

BEFORE : THERIOT, PENZATO, WOLFE, GREENE, AND FIELDS, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The district court’s March 14, 2025 judgment which denied, in part, the motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff/defendant-in-reconvention, Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (“DOTD”), and granted, in part, the motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant/plaintiff-in-reconvention, Mark Eric Milligan (“Milligan”) is reversed, in part. DOTD’s motion for summary judgment is granted in part and Milligan’s motion for partial summary judgment is denied in part as to the issues of replacement costs and temporary housing costs. As the party challenging the amount of just compensation deposited by DOTD, Milligan bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was entitled to a higher value. Par. of Livingston v. A&M Inv. Props., LLC, 2023-0912 (La. App. lst Cir. 6/27/24), 2024 WL 3198941, *9 (unpublished), writ denied, 2024-00959 (La. 11/14/24), 395 So. 3d 1185. For purposes of replacement costs, Milligan has failed to offer factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that the expropriated property was indispensable to the conduct of business operations. State Through Dep't of Highways v. Constant, 369 So. 2d 699, 707 (La. 1979). Furthermore, while Milligan is entitled to be compensated to the full extent of its loss, he is only entitled to damages that were “actually incurred by the owner because of the expropriation.” La. Const. art. I, § 4(B) (5). Milligan failed to offer factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact that his temporary housing claim was incurred because of the expropriation. Accordingly, DOTD’s motion is granted in part, and the claims of Milligan for replacement costs and temporary housing

costs are dismissed. Milligan’s motion for partial summary judgment as to relocation costs, which include storage and moving costs, is denied. Material issues of fact remain, precluding

summary judgment on those claims. In all other respects, the writ is denied.

Fields, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. T concur with the grant of the writ to deny the motion for partial summary STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CW 0439 (PAGE 2 OF 2)

judgment filed by defendant/plaintiff-in-reconvention, Mark Eric

Milligan, as to relocation costs, but would deny the remainder of the writ.

_COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

“COURT FOR THE COURT