§147. Contesting validity or extent of taking; waiver of defenses; judgment on validity or extent of taking
A. Any defendant desiring to contest the validity or extent of the taking on the ground that the property was not expropriated for a public use may file a motion to dismiss the suit within twenty days from the date the notice was served on him. He shall certify thereon that a copy thereof has been served personally or by mail on either the plaintiff or his attorney of record in the suit. This motion shall be tried contradictorily with the plaintiff.
B. Failure to file the motion to dismiss or to serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff within twenty days from the date the notice was served on him constitutes a waiver of all defenses to the suit except claims for compensation.
C. In the event a defendant files a timely motion to dismiss challenging the validity or extent of the taking, the court shall set the matter for hearing within thirty days after the filing of the motion to dismiss and shall render a decision within five days after the case is submitted. A judgment rendered determining the validity or the extent of the taking pursuant to this Part shall be signed and designated as a final judgment by the court for the purpose of an immediate appeal.
Added by Acts 1958, No. 204, §1; Acts 2014, No. 625, §1, eff. August 1, 2014.
Notes of Decisions
Bd. of Supervisors v. Mid City Holdings, L.L.C., 151 So. 3d 908 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “R.S. 19:147. 3 Upon application of any party in interest and due notice to all parties, the court may order that the funds on deposit or part thereof “be paid forthwith to the person entitled thereto for or on account of the just and adequate compensation to be awarded in the…”
Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. v. Dixie Brewing Co., 131 So. 3d 130 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 19:147. 5 Dixie now argues that the filing of its motion to dismiss “places the adjudication of title in the hands of the Court” and “blocks the ability of LSU to take actions relative to the property” until the motion has been decided.”
2400 Canal, LLC v. Bd. of Supervisors, 105 So. 3d 819 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
“R.S. 19:147 limited their defense of an expropriation to a Motion to Dismiss and did not encompass its allegations of constitutional violations for expropriating its property and “leasing” it to the VA, without extending the right of first refusal to plaintiff as original owner.”
State of Louisiana, Coastal Prot. & Restoration Auth. Versus Angelique Levet Aycock, Claude A. Levet, Dssl Props., LLC, Emilie Levet Blank, Jacques P. Levet, Joanna Levet Petrie, Lawrence P. Levet, Lester J. Millet, Jr., Suzanne Levet Ulmer, Winnie Lodrigues, Jr., & Yvette Levet Dornier (La. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 3× “Additionally, no defendant had made any appearance or filed any answer or responsive pleading challenging either the validity or extent of the taking or the amount of just compensation.”
Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Tuan Nguyen (La. Ct. App. 2025).
“R.S. 19:147 provides: A. Any defendant desiring to contest the validity or extent of the taking on the ground that the property was not expropriated for a public use may file a motion to dismiss the suit within twenty days from the date the notice was served on him.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 19:147(A) — 2 cases
State of Louisiana, Coastal Prot. & Restoration Auth. Versus Angelique Levet Aycock, Claude A. Levet, Dssl Props., LLC, Emilie Levet Blank, Jacques P. Levet, Joanna Levet Petrie, Lawrence P. Levet, Lester J. Millet, Jr., Suzanne Levet Ulmer, Winnie Lodrigues, Jr., & Yvette Levet Dornier (La. Ct. App. 2023).
“Additionally, no defendant had made any appearance or filed any answer or responsive pleading challenging either the validity or extent of the taking or the amount of just compensation.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 19:147(B) — 1 case
— La. Rev. Stat. § 19:147(C) — 1 case
State of Louisiana, Coastal Prot. & Restoration Auth. Versus Angelique Levet Aycock, Claude A. Levet, Dssl Props., LLC, Emilie Levet Blank, Jacques P. Levet, Joanna Levet Petrie, Lawrence P. Levet, Lester J. Millet, Jr., Suzanne Levet Ulmer, Winnie Lodrigues, Jr., & Yvette Levet Dornier (La. Ct. App. 2023).
“Additionally, no defendant had made any appearance or filed any answer or responsive pleading challenging either the validity or extent of the taking or the amount of just compensation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.