31 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc.green2 sentences2020Instead, the record indicates that the parties intended for this hearing to solely determine the issue of the preliminary injunction.6 In Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc., 258 La. 311, 321 , 246 So. 2d 183, 186 ( 1971), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that appeal delays run from the date of the judgment and are not interrupted or suspended by the filing of a motion for new trial because " the delays incident to applications for new trials 6I City of Baton Rouge v. State, ex rel. 2020Instead, the record indicates that the parties intended for this hearing to solely determine the issue of the preliminary injunction.6 In Morris v. Transtates Petroleum, Inc., 258 La. 311, 321 , 246 So. 2d 183, 186 ( 1971), the Louisiana Supreme Court explained that appeal delays run from the date of the judgment and are not interrupted or suspended by the filing of a motion for new trial because " the delays incident to applications for new trials 6I City of Baton Rouge v. State, ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
WHITNEY NAT. BANK v. Poydras Center Assoc.green2 sentences2013Bank of New Orleans v. Poydras Center Associates, 468 So.2d 1246, 1249 (La.App. 4 Cir.1985) (“a preliminary injunction hearing cannot be converted to a permanent injunction hearing absent a stipulation of the parties to the contrary”). 2008In Whitney National Bank of New Orleans v. Poydras Center Assoc. and HCB, 468 So.2d 1246 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1985), this Court addressed that issue stating: Although the jurisprudence is clear that a preliminary injunction hearing cannot be converted to a permanent injunction hearing absent a stipulation of the parties to the contrary, Springlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pecot, 321 So.2d 789 (La.App. 4th Cir.1975), it is equally well established that where a judgment denying a preliminary injunction after a hearing on the rule also passes on the merits of the case and effectively disposes o | 1 | 2 |
Dore v. Jefferson Guar. Bankgreen1 sentence2022Bank, 543 So.2d 560, 562 (La. | 1 | 1 |
Eastern Savings Bank, FSB v. Pharrgreen1 sentence2015See Eastern Savings Bank v. Pharr, 12-1754, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/3/13), 156 So.3d 92, 94 . | 1 | 1 |
High Plains Fuel Corp. v. Carto International Trading, Inc.green1 sentence2013See, High Plains Fuel Corp. v. Carto Int’l Trading, Inc., 93-1275 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/20/94) , 640 So.2d 609, 613 , writ denied, 94-2362 (La.11/29/94), 646 So.2d 402 . . | 1 | 1 |
High Plains Fuel v. Carto Intern. Tradinggreen1 sentence2013See, High Plains Fuel Corp. v. Carto Int’l Trading, Inc., 93-1275 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/20/94) , 640 So.2d 609, 613 , writ denied, 94-2362 (La.11/29/94), 646 So.2d 402 . . | 1 | 1 |
Creppel v. Parish of Jeffersongreen1 sentence2013The Association appealed this judgment as well and the two appeals have been consolidated. 5 DISCUSSION Denial of preliminary and permanent injunction Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction hearing is held prior to the trial on a permanent injunction, as the former “is an interlocutory procedure to maintain or adjust the existing status of the litigants upon a prima facie showing that to do otherwise would result in irreparable injury, pending the decision on the permanent | (¡injunction, which is dispositive of the issues on the merits.” Fox v. Horsemen’s Benev. & Protective Ass’n, 426 So.2d 27 | 1 | 1 |
Sabino v. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'ngreen1 sentence2013The Association appealed this judgment as well and the two appeals have been consolidated. 5 DISCUSSION Denial of preliminary and permanent injunction Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction hearing is held prior to the trial on a permanent injunction, as the former “is an interlocutory procedure to maintain or adjust the existing status of the litigants upon a prima facie showing that to do otherwise would result in irreparable injury, pending the decision on the permanent | (¡injunction, which is dispositive of the issues on the merits.” Fox v. Horsemen’s Benev. & Protective Ass’n, 426 So.2d 27 | 1 | 1 |
Gorham v. Mathieson Alkali Works, Inc.green2 sentences1995See and compare Gorham v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 210 La. 462 , 27 So.2d 299 (1946); and Martin v. H.B. 1995See and compare Gorham v. Mathieson Alkali Works, 210 La. 462 , 27 So.2d 299 (1946); and Martin v. H.B. | 1 | 1 |
Straus Frank Company v. Browngreen2 sentences1995Our Supreme Court has held that, in order to obtain an injunction to bar trade name infringement, the plaintiff must prove fraud on the part of the defendant...." Straus Frank Co. v. Brown, 246 La. 999 , 169 So.2d 77, 80 (1964).... 1995Our Supreme Court has held that, in order to obtain an injunction to bar trade name infringement, the plaintiff must prove fraud on the part of the defendant...." Straus Frank Co. v. Brown, 246 La. 999 , 169 So.2d 77, 80 (1964).... | 1 | 1 |
Chalmers Corp. v. Carnellgreen1 sentence1990See also Chalmers Corp. v. Carnell, 479 So.2d 990 (La.App. 3d Cir.1985), where the employee's attendance at company meetings and his on-the-job training were found legally insufficient to support enforcement of an agreement not to compete. *904 After DDAI put on its evidence at the preliminary injunction hearing, its counsel conceded that DDAI's claimed expenses to advertise Ferrier's connection with the company "don't reach a substantial amount." Because Johnson had testified that there were no "outside" formal training programs to which Ferrier could be sent, DDAI argued that the training Jo | 1 | 1 |
Penn v. Burkgreen2 sentences1965See Penn v. Burk, 244 La. 267 , 152 So.2d 16 . 1965See Penn v. Burk, 244 La. 267 , 152 So.2d 16 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kliebert Educ. Trust v. Watson Marines Serv., Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Id. 1989Kliebert Educational Trust v. Watson Marine Services, Inc., 454 So.2d 855 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984). | 2 | 1989–2022 |
Levine v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Barber v. Louisiana Workforce Commission
green
2 sentences2018In Barber v. Louisiana Workforce Commission , 15-1700, p. 1 (La. 10/9/15), 176 So.3d 398 , 398 (Barber I), the supreme court found the constitutional issue was not properly raised in the trial court, since a court may not declare a statute unconstitutional in the context of a summary proceeding such as a preliminary injunction hearing. 2018In Barber v. Louisiana Workforce Commission , 15-1700, p. 1 (La. 10/9/15), 176 So.3d 398 , 398 (Barber I), the supreme court found the constitutional issue was not properly raised in the trial court, since a court may not declare a statute unconstitutional in the context of a summary proceeding such as a preliminary injunction hearing. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Kruger v. Garden Dist. Ass'n
green
2 sentences2015Kruger v. The Garden District Assoc., 99-3344 (La.3/24/00), 756 So.2d 309 . 2007Thus, ordinarily, where the parties do not agree to try the declaratory judgment action coincident with the preliminary injunction hearing, a declaratory judgment action on the constitutionality of a statute is not ripe for determination. [6] Kruger, 756 So.2d at 310-311 . | 2 | 2007–2015 |
Elysian Fields Church of Christ v. Dillon
green
2 sentences2014“A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural device designed to preserve the status quo as it exists between the parties, pending trial on the merits.” Elysian Fields Church of Christ v. Dillon, 08-0989, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/18/09), 7 So.3d 1227, 1231 . 2013While a preliminary injunction may issue on a prima facie showing, the “issuance of a permanent injunction, ..., takes place only after a trial on the merits in which the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.” Elysian Fields Church of Christ v. Dillon, 08-0989, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/18/09), 7 So.3d 1227, 1232 . | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Springlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pecot
green
2 sentences2008In Whitney National Bank of New Orleans v. Poydras Center Assoc. and HCB, 468 So.2d 1246 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1985), this Court addressed that issue stating: Although the jurisprudence is clear that a preliminary injunction hearing cannot be converted to a permanent injunction hearing absent a stipulation of the parties to the contrary, Springlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pecot, 321 So.2d 789 (La.App. 4th Cir.1975), it is equally well established that where a judgment denying a preliminary injunction after a hearing on the rule also passes on the merits of the case and effectively disposes o 1985Although the jurisprudence is clear that a preliminary injunction hearing cannot be converted to a permanent injunction hearing absent a stipulation of the parties to the contrary, Springlake Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Pecot, 321 So.2d 789 (La.App. 4th Cir.1975), it is equally well established that where a judgment denying a preliminary injunction after a hearing on the rule also passes on the merits of the case and effectively disposes of all issues presented by the pleadings, such judgment is a final judgment. | 2 | 1985–2008 |
Baton Rouge Cigarette Service v. Bloomenstiel
green
2 sentences1978This court in Baton Rouge Cigarette Service v. Bloomenstiel, 88 So.2d 742 (1956) recognized the difference between a hearing on a preliminary injunction and a hearing on the merits. 1964In the case of Baton Rouge Cigarette Service v. Bloomenstiel, (La.App., 1 Cir., 1956), 88 So.2d 742 , the court recognized the difference between a hearing on a preliminary injunction and a hearing on the merits. | 2 | 1964–1978 |
State v. Foret
green
1 sentence2018App. 4 Cir. 2/13/13); 155 So.3d 514 , 518, where the court stated the parties may agree to consolidate the trial on the merits of a permanent injunction with a hearing on the preliminary injunction, but noted that a preliminary injunction hearing cannot be converted to a permanent injunction hearing absent a stipulation by the parties. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Marlbrough v. Zar
neutral
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
C. Napco, Inc. v. City of New Orleans
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Spinks v. Caddo-Bossier Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000First, finding there was a pending seizure, but no sale, the trial court cited Spinks v. Caddo-Bossier Services, Inc., 270 So.2d 604 (La.App. 2 Cir.1972), as authority for holding the filing of an injunction to bar the sale was not a prerequisite to the filing of a petition to annul the judgment. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bayou Hunting Club of Hunter v. DeSoto Parish Police Jury
green
2 sentences1998Bayou Hunting Club of Hunter v. DeSoto Parish Police Jury, supra. Considering that there is no indication in the record that the parties agreed to try the merits of the action for a permanent injunction at the preliminary injunction hearing, the 15-day appeal delay prescribed by LSA-C.C.P. art. 3612 is applicable. 1998Bayou Hunting Club of Hunter v. DeSoto Parish Police Jury, supra. Considering that there is no indication in the record that the parties agreed to try the merits of the action for a permanent injunction at the preliminary injunction hearing, the 15-day appeal delay prescribed by LSA-C.C.P. art. 3612 is applicable. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Frommeyer v. St. Charles Parish
neutral
1 sentence1992Therefore, an additional basis for the preliminary injunction, that of irreparable injury, has been met, as discussed and outlined in Frommeyer, supra. “The trial judge in a preliminary injunction hearing has great discretion to grant or deny the relief. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Thomas v. Evergreen Presbyterian Ministries, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1990Thomas v. Evergreen Presbyterian Min., 535 So.2d 1046 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co.
green
1 sentence1990Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co., 373 So.2d 488 (La.1979); Charleston v. Martin, 338 So.2d 1169 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Charleston v. Martin
neutral
1 sentence1990Smith v. West Virginia Oil & Gas Co., 373 So.2d 488 (La.1979); Charleston v. Martin, 338 So.2d 1169 (La.App. 2d Cir.1976). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bodet v. Broussard
neutral
1 sentence1981The action of the trial judge at the preliminary injunction hearing was based solely on the principle that the State Law (LSA-R.S. 42:1101 et seq.) preempted the authority of the Personnel Board and relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Bodet v. Broussard et al., 407 So.2d 810 No. 12058 of our docket and did not conduct a full hearing. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Mackie Pine Products Co. v. Frederick green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Ex Parte Locklear
green
1 sentence1954He cited the case of Mackie Pine Products Co. v. Frederick, 148 La. 687 , 87 So. 712 , 713 in support of his ruling. ..1 = - Appellant through its counsel strenuously urges that the trial judge was in error in restricting the testimony and that it should have been allowed to bring out the fact relative to the issuance particularly of Certificate No. 8 which, it is contended, is so closely connected with Certificate No. 9 that it is not possible to separate them. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.