Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
37 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. LaSalle Parish Sch. Bd.green2 sentences1990Bd., 341 So.2d 73, 75 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976), writ den., 343 So.2d 203 (La.1977), we said: "The jurisprudence of our state is abundantly clear that where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact the courts will not review the evidence before such body except for the following limited purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, (3) whether or not the hearing body's conclusions from these factu 1990So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 443 So.2d 592 (La.1983), this court, citing Allen v. LaSalle Parish School Board, 341 So.2d 73 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976), enunciated the standard of review in such cases as follows: "The jurisprudence of our state is abundantly clear that where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact the courts will not review the evidence before such body except for the following limited purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the f | 4 | 7 |
Corbello v. Suttongreen2 sentences2024La. R.S. 30:9; 30:10; Hunt Oil Co. v. Batchelor, 93-3144, p. 6 (La. 10/17/94), 644 So.2d 191, 196-97 ; Corbello v. Sutton, 442 So.2d 610, 614 (La. 1983). 2024La. R.S. 30:9; 30:10; Hunt Oil Co. v. Batchelor, 93-3144, p. 6 (La. 10/17/94), 644 So.2d 191, 196-97 ; Corbello v. Sutton, 442 So.2d 610, 614 (La. 1983). | 2 | 2 |
Central La. El. Co. v. Covington & St. Tammany L. & I. Co.green2 sentences1978While noting that the subsection of La.R.S. 19:2 which deals with electric utility companies is the only portion of that statute which requires consideration of the landowner's convenience, the court nevertheless relied on the frequently stated principle that "in the location of rights-of-way considerable discretion is vested in the expropriating authority and the courts will not disturb or interfere with the exercise thereof in the absence of fraud, bad faith or conduct or practices amounting to an abuse of the privilege," id. at 375 , and approved the route selected by the expropriating comp 1969Tammany Land and Improvement Company (1961) 131 So.2d 369 , on page 376 that: “ ‘It is elementary that in all expropriation cases the prohibition against arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and unnecessary taking is ever present.’ still the burden is with the defendant to show that the plaintiff herein is guilty of fraudulent practices, bad faith or conduct or practices amounting to an abuse of the privilege of expropriation. * * * * * * “At this point the proposed route had been finalized into definite selection, and while not necessarily approving its avoidance of further discussion of the r | 1 | 8 |
Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Bowie Lumber Co.green2 sentences2009Id. at 739-49 . 1969One such cardinal principle is that in the location of rights-of-way considerable discretion is vested in the expropriating authority and the courts will not disturb or interfere with the exercise thereof in the absence of fraud, bad faith or conduct or practices amounting to an abuse of the privilege. [Citations] “It is also well settled that availability of other and alternate routes is of no concern to the property owner whose land is sought to be expropriated provided the location selected fulfills the needs and requirements of the expropriator, meets the standards prescribed by sound engi | 1 | 3 |
Holiday Bossier Ltd. Partnership v. Louisiana Tax Com'ngreen2 sentences1994Partnership v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 574 So.2d 1280, 1285 (La.App.2d Cir.), writ den., 578 So.2d 136 (La.1991), citing Hanson v. Louisiana Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ den., 443 So.2d 592 (La.1983), the court stated that where the administrative agency or hearing body was the trier-of-fact, the court’s review of evidence is limited to: (1)determin[ing] if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) deter-minfing] whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, 3) whether or 1993Holiday Bossier Limited Partnership, supra; Hanson v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 443 So.2d 592 (La. 1983), and cases cited therein. | 1 | 3 |
Bernard v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd.green2 sentences2000The standard of review is well-established and was set forth by this court in Bernard v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd., 93-534, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/16/94); 640 So.2d 321, 324 (citations omitted): Where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact, the reviewing court will not review the evidence before such a body except for the following purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, (3) to determ 1996The appellate standard of review was discussed in Bernard v. Avoyelles Parish School Bd., 93-534, 640 So.2d 321 (La.App. 3d Cir. 2/16/94), as follows: Where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact, the reviewing court will not review the evidence before such a body except for the following purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, (3) to determine whether or not the hearing body's conclusi | 1 | 2 |
Bays v. Baysgreen1 sentence2021“Procedural due process requires that a person be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Bays v. Bays, 2000-1727, p. 6 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So. 2d 754, 758 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Quezadagreen1 sentence2016See State v. Quezada, 2013-1318, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/14), 141 So.3d 906, 912 . | 1 | 1 |
Sampson v. Lincoln Parish School Bd.green1 sentence1990Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971) ; Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 537 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1965) ; Barber v. Lake Charles Pipe and Supply Company, 148 So.2d 326 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1962) . *588 Furthermore, in Sampson v. Lincoln Parish School Bd., 439 So.2d 454, 456 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Congergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board
neutral
2 sentences1990Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971) ; Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 537 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1965) ; Barber v. Lake Charles Pipe and Supply Company, 148 So.2d 326 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1962) . *588 Furthermore, in Sampson v. Lincoln Parish School Bd., 439 So.2d 454, 456 (La. 1990Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board; 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971); Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 537 (La. | 6 | 1977–1990 |
Barber v. Lake Charles Pipe and Supply Company
green
2 sentences1990Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971) ; Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 537 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1965) ; Barber v. Lake Charles Pipe and Supply Company, 148 So.2d 326 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1962) . *588 Furthermore, in Sampson v. Lincoln Parish School Bd., 439 So.2d 454, 456 (La. 1983Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971); Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 587 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1965); Barber v. Lake Charles Pipe and Supply Company, 148 So.2d 326 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1962). | 5 | 1977–1990 |
Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board
green
2 sentences1990Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971) ; Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 537 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1965) ; Barber v. Lake Charles Pipe and Supply Company, 148 So.2d 326 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1962) . *588 Furthermore, in Sampson v. Lincoln Parish School Bd., 439 So.2d 454, 456 (La. 1990Stewart v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board; 251 So.2d 487 (La.App. 1st Cir.1971); Moffett v. Calcasieu Parish School Board, 179 So.2d 537 (La. | 5 | 1977–1990 |
Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge
green
2 sentences2019Kennedy , 935 So.2d at 683 . 2007Even if the trial court had found gross negligence in the communications, and the record supported that finding, such a finding would not be sufficient to prove an abuse of the privilege asserted by defendants for reporting the possibility of criminal behavior. [3] See Kennedy, 05-1418 at p. 31, 935 So.2d at 689 . | 3 | 2007–2019 |
Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Bd.
green
2 sentences2002Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Board, 617 So.2d 187 (La.App. 3 Cir.) writ denied, 619 So.2d 1068 (La.1993). 1996Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Board, 617 So.2d 187 (La. | 3 | 1994–2002 |
Hanson v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COM'N.
green
2 sentences1994Partnership v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 574 So.2d 1280, 1285 (La.App.2d Cir.), writ den., 578 So.2d 136 (La.1991), citing Hanson v. Louisiana Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ den., 443 So.2d 592 (La.1983), the court stated that where the administrative agency or hearing body was the trier-of-fact, the court’s review of evidence is limited to: (1)determin[ing] if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) deter-minfing] whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, 3) whether or 1993Holiday Bossier Limited Partnership, supra; Hanson v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 443 So.2d 592 (La. 1983), and cases cited therein. | 3 | 1991–1994 |
Hanson v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n
green
2 sentences1994Partnership v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 574 So.2d 1280, 1285 (La.App.2d Cir.), writ den., 578 So.2d 136 (La.1991), citing Hanson v. Louisiana Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ den., 443 So.2d 592 (La.1983), the court stated that where the administrative agency or hearing body was the trier-of-fact, the court’s review of evidence is limited to: (1)determin[ing] if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) deter-minfing] whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, 3) whether or 1993Holiday Bossier Limited Partnership, supra; Hanson v. Louisiana State Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 443 So.2d 592 (La. 1983), and cases cited therein. | 3 | 1991–1994 |
Van Norman v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
neutral
2 sentences1990Bd., 341 So.2d 73, 75 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976), writ den., 343 So.2d 203 (La.1977), we said: "The jurisprudence of our state is abundantly clear that where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact the courts will not review the evidence before such body except for the following limited purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, (3) whether or not the hearing body's conclusions from these factu 1983Bd., 341 So.2d 73, 75 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976), writ den., 343 So.2d 203 (La.1977), we said: “The jurisprudence of our state is abundantly clear that where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact the courts will not review the evidence before such body except for the following limited purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, (3) whether or not the hearing body’s conclusions from these factu | 3 | 1983–1990 |
Hunt Oil Co. v. Batchelor
green
2 sentences2024La. R.S. 30:9; 30:10; Hunt Oil Co. v. Batchelor, 93-3144, p. 6 (La. 10/17/94), 644 So.2d 191, 196-97 ; Corbello v. Sutton, 442 So.2d 610, 614 (La. 1983). 2024La. R.S. 30:9; 30:10; Hunt Oil Co. v. Batchelor, 93-3144, p. 6 (La. 10/17/94), 644 So.2d 191, 196-97 ; Corbello v. Sutton, 442 So.2d 610, 614 (La. 1983). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Bd.
neutral
2 sentences2002Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Board, 617 So.2d 187 (La.App. 3 Cir.) writ denied, 619 So.2d 1068 (La.1993). 1994Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Board, 617 So.2d 187 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 619 So.2d 1068 (La.1993); McLaughlin v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 560 So.2d 585 (La. | 2 | 1994–2002 |
Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1978In Louisiana Power & Light Company v. Anderson, 188 So.2d 733 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1966) the court cited the St. 1967See Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Bowie Lumber Co., 176 So.2d 735 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1965); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Pierce, supra; Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Covington, 131 So.2d 369 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1961); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Anderson, 188 So.2d 733 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1960). | 2 | 1967–1978 |
Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Pierce
green
2 sentences1969Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Pierce, La.App. 3d Cir., 192 So.2d 561 . 1967See Texas Eastern Transmission Corp. v. Bowie Lumber Co., 176 So.2d 735 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1965); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. Pierce, supra; Central Louisiana Electric Co. v. Covington, 131 So.2d 369 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1961); Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Anderson, 188 So.2d 733 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1960). | 2 | 1967–1969 |
Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Id. (citing Trentecosta, 703 So.2d 552 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Trentecosta v. Beck
green
1 sentence2010Id. (citing Trentecosta, 703 So.2d 552 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge
neutral
1 sentence2006Kennedy v. Sheriff of East Baton Rouge, 05-1418 (La.1/13/06), 920 So.2d 217 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
ADMINISTRATORS TULANE ED. FUND v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2002A court's review of the evidence presented at the hearings before the LTC is limited to the "purpose of determining if the hearing was conducted in accordance with authority and formalities of statute, whether the fact-findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence, and whether the body's conclusions from such findings were arbitrary or constituted an abuse of the hearing body's discretion." Administrators of Tulane Educational *576 Fund v. Johnson, 00-297, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/4/01); 784 So.2d 769, 771 , writ denied, 01-1757 (La.10/5/01); 798 So.2d 970 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Orthopaedic Clinic of Monroe v. Ruhl
neutral
1 sentence2002A court's review of the evidence presented at the hearings before the LTC is limited to the "purpose of determining if the hearing was conducted in accordance with authority and formalities of statute, whether the fact-findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence, and whether the body's conclusions from such findings were arbitrary or constituted an abuse of the hearing body's discretion." Administrators of Tulane Educational *576 Fund v. Johnson, 00-297, p. 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/4/01); 784 So.2d 769, 771 , writ denied, 01-1757 (La.10/5/01); 798 So.2d 970 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McLaughlin v. Jefferson Parish School Bd.
green
1 sentence1994Roberts v. Rapides Parish School Board, 617 So.2d 187 (La.App. 3d Cir.), writ denied, 619 So.2d 1068 (La.1993); McLaughlin v. Jefferson Parish School Bd., 560 So.2d 585 (La. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Holiday Bossier Ltd. Partnership v. Louisiana Tax Com'n
neutral
1 sentence1994Partnership v. Louisiana Tax Com’n, 574 So.2d 1280, 1285 (La.App.2d Cir.), writ den., 578 So.2d 136 (La.1991), citing Hanson v. Louisiana Racing Commission, 436 So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ den., 443 So.2d 592 (La.1983), the court stated that where the administrative agency or hearing body was the trier-of-fact, the court’s review of evidence is limited to: (1)determin[ing] if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) deter-minfing] whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and, 3) whether or | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wasson v. Wasson
green
1 sentence1990So.2d 1308 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983), writ denied, 443 So.2d 592 (La.1983), this court, citing Allen v. LaSalle Parish School Board, 341 So.2d 73 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1976), enunciated the standard of review in such cases as follows: "The jurisprudence of our state is abundantly clear that where an administrative agency or hearing body is the trier of fact the courts will not review the evidence before such body except for the following limited purposes: (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the f | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Jacomet v. St. Landry Parish School Bd. neutral | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Jacomet v. St. Landry Parish School Board & Administrator
neutral
1 sentence1986Landry School Board, 386 So.2d 1056 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1980), writ denied 393 So.2d 745 . *1257 The standard for review of the evidence is (1) to determine if the hearing was conducted in accordance with the authority and formalities of the statute; (2) to determine whether or not the fact findings of the body were supported by substantial evidence; and (3) whether or not the hearing body's conclusion from these factual findings were arbitrary or constituted an abuse of the hearing body's discretion. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| State ex rel. Raborn v. Bergeron neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| In re Bergeron neutral | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Kennedy v. Item Co. green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.