substitute requirement in Louisiana

16 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1941–2019 0 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.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wells v. St. Tammany Parish School Bd.green lactapp · 1976 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1988–1995 2 sentences 1995Tammany Parish School Bd., 340 So.2d 1022, 1024 (La.App. 1st Cir.1976). 1988Tammany Parish School Bd., 340 So.2d 1022, 1024 (La.App. 1st Cir.1976).	2	2
Sinclair Oil & Gas Company v. Delacroix Corporationgreen lactapp · 1970 · cited in 3 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1976–2019 2 sentences 2019In the case sub judice, “a summary judgment will not serve as a substitute for an exception of no cause of action.” Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Delacroix Corp., 235 So.2d 187, 190 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1970). 1984Art. 968 a summary judgment is a final judgment, the effect of which is the same .. as if a trial had been had upon evidence regularly adduced.’ See also Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. Delacroix Corporation, 235 So.2d 187 (La.App. 4th Cir.1970).” Applying the foregoing principle, we hold that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, being an improper substitute for an exception of no cause of action, should not have been granted.	1	3
Noble v. Armstronggreen lactapp · 1994 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2005 2 sentences 2005Noble v. Armstrong, 93-841 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/16/94) , 635 So.2d 1199 . 2002Also see Noble v. Armstrong, 93-841 (La.App. 5th Cir.3/16/94), 635 So.2d 1199, 1203 (holding that a motion for summary judgment based on insufficiency of allegations cannot be used as a substitute for an exception of no cause of action).	1	2
Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc.green la · 1972 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990 2 sentences 1990See Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La. 542 , 256 So.2d 620 (1972) and the Dialogues at 34 Louisiana Law Review 1. 1990See Hill v. Lundin & Associates, Inc., 260 La. 542 , 256 So.2d 620 (1972) and the Dialogues at 34 Louisiana Law Review 1.	1	1
B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Clarksongreen lactapp · 1963 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984As it was stated in B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Clarkson, 154 So.2d 67, 69 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1963): “A motion for summary judgment based on insufficiency of allegations cannot be used as a substitute for an exception of vagueness or of no cause of action.	1	1
Steele v. Ruizgreen lactapp · 1967 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976 1 sentence 1976See Steele v. Ruis, 202 So.2d 376 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1967).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
McDuffie v. Walker green la · 1909 2 sentences 1989McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 (1910); Horang v. Plattsmier, 21 La.Ann. 426 (1869); Alison Mtg. 1989McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 (1910); Horang v. Plattsmier, 21 La.Ann. 426 (1869); Alison Mtg.	2	1978–1989
Harang v. Plattsmier neutral la · 1869 2 sentences 1989McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 (1910); Horang v. Plattsmier, 21 La.Ann. 426 (1869); Alison Mtg. 1978McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 (1910); Harang v. Plattsmier, 21 La.Ann. 426 (1869); Wood v. Morvant, 321 So.2d 914 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975).	2	1978–1989
State v. Bailey green lactapp · 1990 1 sentence 2016Certainly an action of nullity is not a substitute for a defense on the merits or an appeal, Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., 392 So.2d 398 (La.1980); State v. Bailey, 567 So.2d 721 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990).	1	2016–2016
Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc. green la · 1980 1 sentence 2016Certainly an action of nullity is not a substitute for a defense on the merits or an appeal, Smith v. Cajun Insulation, Inc., 392 So.2d 398 (La.1980); State v. Bailey, 567 So.2d 721 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990).	1	2016–2016
Westbrook v. Prince neutral lactapp · 1985 1 sentence 1990Brooks v. Prince, 465 So.2d 797 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1985); St.	1	1990–1990
Crier v. Whitecloud green la · 1986 1 sentence 1988The Louisiana Supreme Court in Crier v. Whitecloud, 496 So.2d 305 (La.1986) held that the three year limitation on medical malpractice actions set forth in La.R.S. 9:5628 did not violate the clauses of the Louisiana Constitution guaranteeing due process, equal protection, or access to the courts.	1	1988–1988
Wood v. Morvant green lactapp · 1975 1 sentence 1978McDuffie v. Walker, 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 (1910); Harang v. Plattsmier, 21 La.Ann. 426 (1869); Wood v. Morvant, 321 So.2d 914 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975).	1	1978–1978
Touchet v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ neutral lactapp · 1962 1 sentence 1971LSA-C.C.P. 966 et seq., Owens v. AAA Contracting Company, 219 So.2d 226 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1969), Smith v. Old Colony Insurance Corp., 187 So.2d 463 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1966), Touchet v. Fireman’s Insurance Company, 146 So.2d 441 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1962.) A hearing on the motion for summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits, and likewise, it may not be used as a substitute for an exception of no cause or right of action.	1	1971–1971
Owens v. AAA Contracting Co. neutral lactapp · 1969 1 sentence 1971LSA-C.C.P. 966 et seq., Owens v. AAA Contracting Company, 219 So.2d 226 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1969), Smith v. Old Colony Insurance Corp., 187 So.2d 463 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1966), Touchet v. Fireman’s Insurance Company, 146 So.2d 441 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1962.) A hearing on the motion for summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits, and likewise, it may not be used as a substitute for an exception of no cause or right of action.	1	1971–1971
Smith v. Old Colony Insurance neutral lactapp · 1966 1 sentence 1971LSA-C.C.P. 966 et seq., Owens v. AAA Contracting Company, 219 So.2d 226 (La.App. 1st Cir., 1969), Smith v. Old Colony Insurance Corp., 187 So.2d 463 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1966), Touchet v. Fireman’s Insurance Company, 146 So.2d 441 (La.App. 3rd Cir., 1962.) A hearing on the motion for summary judgment is not a substitute for a trial on the merits, and likewise, it may not be used as a substitute for an exception of no cause or right of action.	1	1971–1971
State v. Henry green la · 1941 2 sentences 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941
State v. Messer green la · 1940 2 sentences 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941
State v. Crawford green la · 1940 2 sentences 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941
State v. Joiner neutral la · 1927 2 sentences 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941
State v. Addison neutral la · 1914 2 sentences 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941
State v. Creech neutral la · 1886 1 sentence 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941
State v. Tibbs neutral la · 1896 2 sentences 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta 1941The following decisions are cited in the majority opinion to support the ruling that, even though a defendant has used all of his twelve peremptory challenges- in the impaneling of the jury, he has no right to complain of an erroneous ruling, overruling a challenge of a juror for cause, unless by such ruling the defendant was forced to accept an obnoxious juror, viz.: State v. Creech, 38 La.Ann. 480 ; State v. Tibbs, 48 La.Ann. 1278 , 20 So. 735 ; State v. Addison, 134 La. 642 , 64 So. 497 ; State v. Joiner, 163 La. 609, 616 , 112 So. 503 ; State v. Messer, 194 La. 238, 253 , 193 So. 633 ; Sta	1	1941–1941

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

LA 16 (1941–2019) CA 16 (1863–2020) KY 15 (2016–2026) IL 14 (1973–2020) MO 9 (1890–2024) OK 9 (1932–2019) FL 9 (1990–2016) TX 8 (1990–2023) UT 7 (1944–2020) NY 7 (1926–2016) NJ 6 (2006–2024) OH 6 (2000–2008) DC 5 (1980–2008) HI 5 (1980–2025) IA 5 (1996–2026) MA 5 (1989–2013) WA 4 (2015–2016) AR 3 (1979–2015) MN 3 (1985–1989) NC 3 (1964–2005) AZ 2 (1985–2020) MS 2 (1997–2001) MD 2 (1986–1987) ME 2 (1983–2025) AK 2 (1976–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check

Your account

Appearance