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.
20 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blackett v. Dept. of Environ. Qualitygreen2 sentences2000In the Matter of Rubicon, Inc., 670 So.2d at 483 ; Blackett v. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 506 So.2d 749, 754 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). 1996Further, it should be understood that any written finding of facts and reasons for decision must satisfy the issues of whether: 1) the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed project have been avoided to the maximum extent possible; 2) a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of the project demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former; and 3) there are alternative projects or alternative sites or mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the environment than the proposed project witho | 2 | 3 |
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildingsgreen2 sentences2022Broussard, 2012-1238, p. 12, 113 So.3d at 185 (footnote omitted). 2021The Broussard court explained that “the cost-benefit analysis employed by the fact-finder in making this determination is more properly associated with the breach, rather than the duty, element of our duty-risk analysis.” Id., 12-1238, p. 12, 113 So.3d at 185 (citation omitted)(footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Rubicon, Inc.green2 sentences2002This criteria was stated as three questions in In re Rubicon Inc., 670 So.2d 475 (La.App. 1 Cir.1996) (en banc), 670 So.2d 475 , at page 483 and footnote 8: "* * * 1) the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed project have been avoided to the maximum extent possible; 2) a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of the project demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former; and 3) there are alternative projects or alternative sites or mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the environ 2002This criteria was stated as three questions in In re Rubicon Inc., 670 So.2d 475 (La.App. 1 Cir.1996) (en banc), 670 So.2d 475 , at page 483 and footnote 8: "* * * 1) the potential and real adverse environmental effects of the proposed project have been avoided to the maximum extent possible; 2) a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impact costs balanced against the social and economic benefits of the project demonstrate that the latter outweighs the former; and 3) there are alternative projects or alternative sites or mitigating measures which would offer more protection to the environ | 1 | 7 |
In Re Belle Co., LLCgreen2 sentences2004See In re Belle Company, L.L.C., 2000-0504, pp. 16-17 (La.App. 1st Cir.6/27/01), 809 So.2d 225, 238 ; In re Rubicon, Inc., 95-0108, p. 12 (La.App. 1st Cir.2/14/96), 670 So.2d 475, 483 . 2004See In re Belle Company, L.L.C., 2000-0504 at pp. 16-17, 809 So.2d at 238 ; In re Rubicon, Inc., 95-0108 at p. 12, 670 So.2d at 483 . | 1 | 2 |
South Louisiana Environmental Council, Inc. v. Sandgreen1 sentence2024S. Louisiana Env't Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1013, n.7 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 827 (5th Cir. 1975)). | 1 | 1 |
Joseph v. Secretary, Louisiana Department Of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2024Joseph, 2018-414, p. 13, 265 So.3d at 955 (citation omitted), Turning to the facts of this present case, the record contains the LDENR’s Decision, which provides the agency’s reasons for granting the CUP to TGPC. | 1 | 1 |
Sierra Club v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Shell Oil Company, Intervenors-Appelleesgreen1 sentence2024S. Louisiana Env't Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1013, n.7 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Sierra Club v. Morton, 510 F.2d 813, 827 (5th Cir. 1975)). | 1 | 1 |
In re Appeal of the Decision of the Disciplinary Board No. 12-PDB-014green2 sentences2013Broussard, 2012-1288 at p. 12, 99 So.3d at 50 (citations omitted.) Because the determination of whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous necessarily involves a myriad of factual considerations, varying from case to case, the cost-benefit analysis employed by the fact-finder in making this determination is more properly associated with the breach, rather than the duty, element of our duty-risk analysis. 2013Id. (citations omitted.) Thus, while a defendant only has a duty to protect against unreasonable risks that are not obvious or apparent, the fact-finder, employing a risk-utility balancing test, determines which risks are unreasonable and whether those risks pose an open and obvious hazard. | 1 | 1 |
In Matter of American Waste and Pollution Control Co.green1 sentence1995See Matter of American Waste & Pollution Control, 633 So.2d 188, 196-197 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), aff'd, 93-3163 (La. 9/15/94), 642 So.2d 1258 (wherein this court vacated a DEQ order granting a permit to operate a solid waste landfill where DEQ and the permit applicant failed to properly evaluate alternative sites). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of American Waste and Pollution Control Co.green1 sentence1995See Matter of American Waste & Pollution Control, 633 So.2d 188, 196-197 (La.App. 1st Cir.1993), aff'd, 93-3163 (La. 9/15/94), 642 So.2d 1258 (wherein this court vacated a DEQ order granting a permit to operate a solid waste landfill where DEQ and the permit applicant failed to properly evaluate alternative sites). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Save Ourselves, Inc. v. La. Environ. Cont. Com'n
green
2 sentences2018LAW AND DISCUSSION Other than the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, Southern Aggregates designates three assignments of error and LDEQ asserts one assignment of error, all of which pertain to whether the district court erred in finding that LDEQ was required to consider economic impacts to neighboring landowners when conducting a cost-benefit analysis as set forth in Save Ourselves , 452 So.2d at 1157 . *928 In reversing the decision of LDEQ, the district court stated: [T]he court finds that the decision of [LDEQ] is not supported and not sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence that 2018LAW AND DISCUSSION Other than the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, Southern Aggregates designates three assignments of error and LDEQ asserts one assignment of error, all of which pertain to whether the district court erred in finding that LDEQ was required to consider economic impacts to neighboring landowners when conducting a cost-benefit analysis as set forth in Save Ourselves , 452 So.2d at 1157 . *928 In reversing the decision of LDEQ, the district court stated: [T]he court finds that the decision of [LDEQ] is not supported and not sustainable by a preponderance of the evidence that | 5 | 1992–2018 |
Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Because the determination of whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous necessarily involves a myriad of factual considerations, varying from case to case, Reed, [19]97–1174 at p. 4, 708 So.2d at 364 , the cost-benefit analysis employed by the fact-finder in making this determination is more properly associated with the breach, rather than the duty, element of our duty-risk analysis. 2013Because the determination of whether a defect is unreasonably dangerous necessarily involves a myriad of factual considerations, varying from case to case, Reed , 97-1174 at p. 4, 708 So.2d at 364 , the cost-benefit analysis employed by the fact-finder in making this determination is more properly associated with the breach, rather than the duty, element of our duty-risk analysis. 6 See Maraist, et. al., Answering a Fool, 70 La. | 3 | 2013–2022 |
In the Matter of Cecos International, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018App. 1 Cir. 1990), writ denied , 576 So.2d 18 (La. 1991), wherein the applicant was denied a permit and complained on appeal that LDEQ had failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis. 4 Save Our Hills maintains that economic costs must be considered based on the court's statement in CECOS Int'l that the cost-benefit analysis included, "information concerning the protection of the environment against contamination and the possibility of increased costs from additional police and fire protection." Id. 2018App. 1 Cir. 1990), writ denied , 576 So.2d 18 (La. 1991), wherein the applicant was denied a permit and complained on appeal that LDEQ had failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis. 4 Save Our Hills maintains that economic costs must be considered based on the court's statement in CECOS Int'l that the cost-benefit analysis included, "information concerning the protection of the environment against contamination and the possibility of increased costs from additional police and fire protection." Id. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Dravo Basic Materials Co. Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Save Our Hills further relies on Matter of Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc. , 604 So.2d 630 , 632 (La. 2018Save Our Hills further relies on Matter of Dravo Basic Materials Co., Inc. , 604 So.2d 630 , 632 (La. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Supplemental Fuels, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Matter of Supplemental Fuels, Inc., 94-1596 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/95) , 656 So.2d 29 . 2000Matter of Supplemental Fuels, Inc., 94-1596 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/95) , 656 So.2d 29 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.