183 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2026 19 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 |
|---|---|---|
Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc.green2 sentences2024“The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition, which is done by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading.” Id. (citing Ramey, 869 So.2d at 118 ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc., 616 So.2d at 1235 ). 2024“The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition, which is done by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading.” Id. (citing Ramey, 869 So.2d at 118 ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc., 616 So.2d at 1235 ). | 19 | 46 |
Fink v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2016The Louisiana Supreme Court in Fink, 801 So.2d at 348-49 (citations omitted), discussed the function of an exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. 2014In Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 pp. 3-⅛ (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 348-49 (citations omitted), the supreme court offered some guidance as to the purpose of the no cause of action exception: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. | 7 | 26 |
Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Councilgreen2 sentences2014The Louisiana Supreme Court explained the standard of review of the sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action in Kin-chen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-478, p. 2 (La.10/16/07), 967 So.2d 1137, 1138 (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346, 348-49 ) as follows (alteration in original): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. 2010Exception of No Cause of Action In Kinchen v. Livingston Parish Council, 07-0478, p. 2 (La. 10/16/07), 967 So.2d 1137, 1138 (quoting Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La. 11/29/01), 801 So.2d 346, 348-49 ), the supreme court set forth the role of an appellate court in reviewing a trial court's sustainment or denial of a peremptory exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. | 4 | 8 |
La. Paddlewheels v. La. Riverboat Gaminggreen2 sentences2014LAW AND DISCUSSION In her first two assignments of error, Ms. Cloud contends that the trial court erred in granting the defendant’s exception based upon Savage v. Edwards, 98-1762 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/23/98) , 728 So.2d 428 , affirmed, 98-2929 (La.12/18/98), 722 So.2d 1004 , which we will discuss together. 1 “The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.” Fink, 801 So.2d at 348 (citing Louisiana Paddlewheels. v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Commission, 94-2015 (La.11/30/94), 64 2014“The exception is triable on the face of the papers and for the purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true.” Id. at 349 (citing City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237 ). “[A] petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (citing Haskins v. Clary, 346 So.2d 193 (La.1977)). | 3 | 17 |
Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc.green2 sentences1991Against Kenneth McCoy, Morris asserted a claim for legal malpractice as McCoy was the attorney who drafted the employment contract between Morris and People's Bank. [2] PEOPLE'S BANK The Louisiana Supreme Court in Hero Lands Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975), explained the purpose and function of an exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition. 1986In Hero Lands Company v. Texaco, Inc., 310 So.2d 93 (La.1975), the Supreme Court stated as follows: “The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition. | 2 | 11 |
State, Division of Administration, Office of Facility Planning & Control v. Infinity Surety Agency, L.L.C.green2 sentences2024Agency, L.L.C., 10-2264, p. 8 (La. 5/10/11), 63 So.3d 940, 945-46 (citing Ramey v. DeCaire, 03-1299, p. 7 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114, 118 ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La. 1993)). 2023Agency, L.L.C., 10-2264, p. 8 (La. 5/10/11), 63 So.3d 940, 945-46 (citing Ramey v. DeCaire, 03-1299, p. 7 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114, 118 ). | 2 | 2 |
Cleco Corp. v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2019“The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.” Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 2001-0175, p. 3 (La. 9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, 304 . 2010In Cleco Corp. v. Johnson, 01-0175, p. 3 (La.9/18/01), 795 So.2d 302, 304 , the Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated the standard for reviewing the grant of an exception of no cause of action: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. | 1 | 21 |
Grubbs v. Haven Custom Furnishings, LLCgreen1 sentence2025Id. at 848. | 1 | 1 |
| Washington Mut. Bank v. Monticellogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ferrington v. Louisiana Bd. of Parolegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stevens v. Bd. of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Shreveportgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Leenerts Farms, Inc. v. Rogersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ramey v. DeCaire
green
2 sentences2025Ramey v. DeCaire, 03-1299 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So. 2d 114 . 2024“The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to test the legal sufficiency of the petition, which is done by determining whether the law affords a remedy on the facts alleged in the pleading.” Id. (citing Ramey, 869 So.2d at 118 ; Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc., 616 So.2d at 1235 ). | 20 | 2007–2025 |
Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin
green
2 sentences2009Exception of No Cause of Action For Civil Trespass The Louisiana Supreme Court in Industrial Companies, Inc. v. Durbin, 02-665 (La.1/28/03), 837 So.2d 1207 , articulated the function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action: First, we focus on whether the law provides a remedy against the particular defendant in this case. 2006"The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy against the defendant to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition." Id. at p. 6, 837 So.2d at 1213 . | 18 | 2003–2018 |
Harris v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
green
2 sentences2014Ourso v. WaV-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008-0780, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/14/08), 998 So.2d 295, 298 , unit denied, 2008-2885 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 785 . 2014Ourso v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 08-0780 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/14/08) , 998 So.2d 295, 298 , writ denied, 08-2885 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 785 . | 5 | 2009–2014 |
Ourso v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2014Ourso v. WaV-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008-0780, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/14/08), 998 So.2d 295, 298 , unit denied, 2008-2885 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 785 . 2014Ourso v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 08-0780 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/14/08) , 998 So.2d 295, 298 , writ denied, 08-2885 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 785 . | 5 | 2009–2014 |
Copeland v. TREASURE CASINO, LLC
green
2 sentences2017Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La. 1993); Copeland v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 2001-1122 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02) , 822 So.2d 68, 70 . 2008Everything on Wheels Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru South, Inc., 616 So.2d 1234, 1235 (La.1993); Copeland v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC., XXXX-XXXX, p. 3 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/21/02), 822 So.2d 68, 70 . | 4 | 2005–2017 |
Darville v. Texaco, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984); Darville v. Texaco, Incorporated, 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984); Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 188 . 1994Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984); Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984). | 4 | 1988–1996 |
Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1988The court stated: "The function of the peremptory exception of no right of action is to provide a threshold device for terminating a suit brought by one without the legal capacity to file it or without the legal interest to assert it." Id. at 882 . 1980In our original opinion rendered on February 5, 1979, we cited Guillory v. Nicklos Oil & Gas Company, 315 So.2d 878 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1975), which holds: “The function of the peremptory exception of no right of action is to provide a threshold device for terminating a suit brought by one without the legal capacity to file it or without the legal interest to assert it. * * He * * * “The exception of no right of action is not available to urge a defense to the effect that plaintiff is without interest simply because defendants have a defense to the action. | 4 | 1977–1988 |
Haskins v. Clary
green
2 sentences2014“The exception is triable on the face of the papers and for the purposes of determining the issues raised by the exception, the well-pleaded facts in the petition must be accepted as true.” Id. at 349 (citing City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94), 640 So.2d 237 ). “[A] petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of any claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id. (citing Haskins v. Clary, 346 So.2d 193 (La.1977)). 1992Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La. 1984); Haskins v. Clary, 346 So.2d 193 (La.1977). | 3 | 1988–2014 |
Wood v. Wood
neutral
2 sentences2018Wood , 165 So.3d at 185 ; Ramey v. DeCaire , 03-1299 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114 , 118. 2018Wood , 165 So.3d at 185 ; Ramey v. DeCaire , 03-1299 (La. 3/19/04), 869 So.2d 114 , 118. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
City of New Orleans v. Bd. of Dir. of State Museum
green
2 sentences2013City of New Orleans v. Board of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 98-1170 (La.3/2/99), 739 So.2d 748 ; Wagoner, supra. The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual | ¶ allegations of the petition. 2010City of New Orleans v. Board of Directors of Louisiana State Museum, 98-1170 (La.3/2/99), 739 So.2d 748 ; Richland Parish Police Jury v. Debnam, supra; Dufour v. Westlawn Cemeteries, Inc., supra. The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984); Darville v. Texaco, Incorporated, 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984); Weber v. State, 93-0062 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 188 . 1994Mayer v. Valentine Sugars, Inc., 444 So.2d 618 (La.1984); Darville v. Texaco, Inc., 447 So.2d 473 (La.1984). | 2 | 1994–1996 |
Turner v. Busby
green
1 sentence2026La.Code Civ.P. art. 927; Dering v. Dering, 21-691 (La. 10/1/21), 324 So.3d 1042 (citing Turner v. Busby, 03-3444 (La. 9/9/04), 883 So.2d 412 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Holmes v. Hendricks
neutral
1 sentence2024Calloway v. Lobrano, 2016- 1170, p. 4 La.App. 1 Cir. 4/ 12/ 17), 218 So. 3d 644, 648 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Calloway v. Lobrano
green
1 sentence2024Calloway v. Lobrano, 2016- 1170, p. 4 La.App. 1 Cir. 4/ 12/ 17), 218 So. 3d 644, 648 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Porter
green
1 sentence2022Peremptory Exception of No Cause of Action “The function of the peremptory exception is to have the plaintiff’s action declared legally nonexistent, or barred by effect of law, and hence this exception tends to dismiss or defeat the action.” Id. (quoting La. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Badeaux v. Southwest Computer Bureau, Inc., 2005- 0612, 2005- 719 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06), 929 So. 2d 1211, 1217 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
O'DWYER v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2018NO CAUSE OF ACTION " 'The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy against the defendant to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.' " O'Dwyer , 08-1492, p. 4 , 15 So.3d at 310 ; quoting Indus. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hayes v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2017Hayes v. Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 41,579 6(La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 911, 912 , writ denied, 2007-0085 (La. 03/30/07), 953 So.2d 73 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hood v. Cotter
green
1 sentence2017Hood v. Cotter, 08-0215, (La. 12/2/08), 5 So.3d 819, 829 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hayes v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2017Hayes v. Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc., 41,579 6(La.App. 2 Cir. 12/13/06), 945 So.2d 911, 912 , writ denied, 2007-0085 (La. 03/30/07), 953 So.2d 73 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Blanchard v. Blanchard
green
1 sentence2017Blanchard v. Blanchard, supra, 2012-0106, p. 7, 112 So.3d at 249 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp. neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Richland Parish Police Jury v. Debnam neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mason v. Luther
green
1 sentence2015This court has summarized the law on an exception of no cause of action in Mason v. Luther, 05-25, p. .2 (La.App. 3 .Cir. 6/1/05), 903 So.2d 1145, 1148 , as follows: The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether, the law extends , .a remedy against the defendant to anyone , under the factual allegations of the petition. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Charles v. Landry green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Scheffler v. Adams and Reese, LLP green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Savage v. Edwards green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Savage v. Edwards green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Pierce v. STATE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Hoag v. State green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| BG & G INVESTORS VI, LLC v. Thibaut HG Corp. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Waggoner v. AMERICA FIRST INSURANCE neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Fagot v. Parsons green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Louisiana State Bar Association v. Carr and Associates, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| La. State Bar Ass'n v. CARR AND ASSOCIATES green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Zurich American Ins. Co. v. QUEEN'S MACHINERY CO., LTD. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Rebardi v. Crewboats, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Johnson v. Orleans Parish School Bd. neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.