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.
17 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rsgreen1 sentence2021See City of New 22 Orleans v. Bd. Of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 1993-0690, p. 28 (La. 7/5/94), 23 640 So.2d 237, 253 . 24 The exception of no cause of action “tests the legal sufficiency of a petition 25 by examining whether, based upon the facts alleged in the pleading, the law affords 26 the plaintiff a remedy.” Meckstroth v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 2007– 27 0236, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/27/07), 962 So.2d 490, 492 . | 1 | 1 |
Meckstroth v. La. Dept. of Transp. and Dev.green1 sentence2021See City of New 22 Orleans v. Bd. Of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 1993-0690, p. 28 (La. 7/5/94), 23 640 So.2d 237, 253 . 24 The exception of no cause of action “tests the legal sufficiency of a petition 25 by examining whether, based upon the facts alleged in the pleading, the law affords 26 the plaintiff a remedy.” Meckstroth v. Louisiana Dept. of Transp. & Dev., 2007– 27 0236, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/27/07), 962 So.2d 490, 492 . | 1 | 1 |
Morales v. Parish of Jeffersongreen1 sentence2017Jones v. GEO Grp., Inc., 08-1276, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6 So.3d 1021, 1024 ; see also Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13-673, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278, 1285 (“An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support or contravention of the exception.”). [ i,However, in the event “the trial court does not make any factual determinations, but rather the issue is whether a prior judgment bars an action, *[t]he res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.’” Hay | 1 | 1 |
Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLCgreen1 sentence2017Jones v. GEO Grp., Inc., 08-1276, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6 So.3d 1021, 1024 ; see also Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13-673, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278, 1285 (“An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support or contravention of the exception.”). [ i,However, in the event “the trial court does not make any factual determinations, but rather the issue is whether a prior judgment bars an action, *[t]he res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.’” Hay | 1 | 1 |
Haybeych v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'ngreen1 sentence2017Jones v. GEO Grp., Inc., 08-1276, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6 So.3d 1021, 1024 ; see also Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13-673, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278, 1285 (“An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support or contravention of the exception.”). [ i,However, in the event “the trial court does not make any factual determinations, but rather the issue is whether a prior judgment bars an action, *[t]he res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.’” Hay | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dugas v. Works
green
2 sentences2019DISCUSSION On appeal, we review a trial court's grant of a peremptory exception of prescription according to the following rules: An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support or contravention of the exception. *1207 Dugas v. Bayou Teche Water Works, 10-1211 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11) , 61 So.3d 826 . 2019DISCUSSION On appeal, we review a trial court's grant of a peremptory exception of prescription according to the following rules: An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support or contravention of the exception. *1207 Dugas v. Bayou Teche Water Works, 10-1211 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11) , 61 So.3d 826 . | 8 | 2013–2019 |
First Bank & Trust v. Duwell
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2014First Bank & Trust v. Duwell, 10-481 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/10) , 57 So.3d 1076 , unit denied, 10-2826 (La.2/11/11), 56 So.3d 1005 . | (After judgment is rendered on the merits, the interlocutory judgment—here, the ruling on an exception—becomes part of the final decree and subject to review on appeal. | 2 | 2014–2018 |
Sirmon v. Rip Tide Investors, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014First Bank & Trust v. Duwell, 10-481 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/14/10) , 57 So.3d 1076 , unit denied, 10-2826 (La.2/11/11), 56 So.3d 1005 . | (After judgment is rendered on the merits, the interlocutory judgment—here, the ruling on an exception—becomes part of the final decree and subject to review on appeal. 2011Id. | 2 | 2011–2014 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2000Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 2000Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Jones Ex Rel. Jones v. GEO Group, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Jones v. GEO Grp., Inc., 08-1276, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6 So.3d 1021, 1024 ; see also Allain v. Tripple B Holding, LLC, 13-673, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/11/13), 128 So.3d 1278, 1285 (“An appellate court reviews the exception under the manifest error standard of review if evidence is introduced in support or contravention of the exception.”). [ i,However, in the event “the trial court does not make any factual determinations, but rather the issue is whether a prior judgment bars an action, *[t]he res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo.’” Hay | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hornot v. Cardenas
green
1 sentence2010Hornot v. Cardenas, 06-1341, p. 12 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/03/07), 968 So.2d 789, 798 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Horrell v. Horrell
green
1 sentence2003Horrell v. Horrell, 99-1093, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/00), 808 So.2d 363, 368 , writ denied, 2001-2546 (La.12/7/01), 803 So.2d 971 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Wiginton v. TANGIPAHOA PARISH COUNCIL & GORDON BURGESS
green
1 sentence2003Horrell v. Horrell, 99-1093, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/00), 808 So.2d 363, 368 , writ denied, 2001-2546 (La.12/7/01), 803 So.2d 971 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.