distinction between exception in Louisiana

1965A cause of action is 'the situation or state of facts which entitles a party to sustain an action’, i. e., which gives him ‘a right to judicial interference in his behalf,’ Hope v. Madison, 192 La. 593 , 188 So. 711 , 715 * * *" Cf. Richard v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., 99 So.2d 831, 833 , for a discussion of the distinction between the exception of no right of action and the exception of no cause of action.

1965A cause of action is `the situation or state of facts which entitles a party to sustain an action', i. e., which gives him `a right to judicial interference in his behalf,' Hope v. Madison, 192 La. 593 , 188 So. 711 , 715 * * *" Cf. Richard v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., 99 So.2d 831, 833 , for a discussion of the distinction between the exception of no right of action and the exception of no cause of action.

2002The court then turned to the physician's in-court testimony and reasoned that the testimony was presumptively privileged under the rule of witness immunity and that the plaintiff, to overcome the presumption, was required to show that the physician's testimony was not "pertinent and material to the issue." 154 So. at 28 , 179 La. at 370 . [12] The expert witness testified that the cracks in the plaintiff's home had been caused by settling and not by the defendant's seismic exploration activities and that the cracks had existed when the house was painted prior to the seismographic operations. 3

2002The court then turned to the physician's in-court testimony and reasoned that the testimony was presumptively privileged under the rule of witness immunity and that the plaintiff, to overcome the presumption, was required to show that the physician's testimony was not "pertinent and material to the issue." 154 So. at 28 , 179 La. at 370 . [12] The expert witness testified that the cracks in the plaintiff's home had been caused by settling and not by the defendant's seismic exploration activities and that the cracks had existed when the house was painted prior to the seismographic operations. 3

1965A cause of action is 'the situation or state of facts which entitles a party to sustain an action’, i. e., which gives him ‘a right to judicial interference in his behalf,’ Hope v. Madison, 192 La. 593 , 188 So. 711 , 715 * * *" Cf. Richard v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., 99 So.2d 831, 833 , for a discussion of the distinction between the exception of no right of action and the exception of no cause of action.

1965A cause of action is 'the situation or state of facts which entitles a party to sustain an action’, i. e., which gives him ‘a right to judicial interference in his behalf,’ Hope v. Madison, 192 La. 593 , 188 So. 711 , 715 * * *" Cf. Richard v. National Surety Corporation, La.App., 99 So.2d 831, 833 , for a discussion of the distinction between the exception of no right of action and the exception of no cause of action.

1961In Rapides Grocery Company v. Vann, La.App.2d Cir., 1956, 84 So.2d 831 this court devoted its consideration to the question of whether the exception of no right of action, in addition to challenging the capacity and interest of plaintiff, may also be employed to question plaintiff’s right to assert his demand against a particular defendant. ■ Our affirmative answer to the question so posed was reviewed and reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1956, 230 La. 829 , 89 So.2d 359 .

1961In Rapides Grocery Company v. Vann, La.App.2d Cir., 1956, 84 So.2d 831 this court devoted its consideration to the question of whether the exception of no right of action, in addition to challenging the capacity and interest of plaintiff, may also be employed to question plaintiff’s right to assert his demand against a particular defendant. ■ Our affirmative answer to the question so posed was reviewed and reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1956, 230 La. 829 , 89 So.2d 359 .

2017For an excellent discussion of the distinction between the exception of no right of action and the exception of lack of procedural capacity, see Judge Landrieu’s dissent in Bourbon Invs., LLC v. New Orleans Equity, LLC, 15-1234 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/16) , 207 So.3d 1088 (Landrieu, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part). .

2002The court then turned to the physician's in-court testimony and reasoned that the testimony was presumptively privileged under the rule of witness immunity and that the plaintiff, to overcome the presumption, was required to show that the physician's testimony was not "pertinent and material to the issue." 154 So. at 28 , 179 La. at 370 . [12] The expert witness testified that the cracks in the plaintiff's home had been caused by settling and not by the defendant's seismic exploration activities and that the cracks had existed when the house was painted prior to the seismographic operations. 3

2002The court then turned to the physician's in-court testimony and reasoned that the testimony was presumptively privileged under the rule of witness immunity and that the plaintiff, to overcome the presumption, was required to show that the physician's testimony was not "pertinent and material to the issue." 154 So. at 28 , 179 La. at 370 . [12] The expert witness testified that the cracks in the plaintiff's home had been caused by settling and not by the defendant's seismic exploration activities and that the cracks had existed when the house was painted prior to the seismographic operations. 3

2002Grayson, 746 So.2d at 124 .

2002The court then turned to the physician's in-court testimony and reasoned that the testimony was presumptively privileged under the rule of witness immunity and that the plaintiff, to overcome the presumption, was required to show that the physician's testimony was not "pertinent and material to the issue." 154 So. at 28 , 179 La. at 370 . [12] The expert witness testified that the cracks in the plaintiff's home had been caused by settling and not by the defendant's seismic exploration activities and that the cracks had existed when the house was painted prior to the seismographic operations. 3

2001See also Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 165 , 101 S.Ct. 1614, 1621 , 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); May v. Transworld Drilling Co., 786 F.2d 1261, 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 854 , 107 S.Ct. 190 , 93 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986).

2001See also Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 165 , 101 S.Ct. 1614, 1621 , 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); May v. Transworld Drilling Co., 786 F.2d 1261, 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 854 , 107 S.Ct. 190 , 93 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986).

2001See also Scindia Steam Navigation Co. v. De Los Santos, 451 U.S. 156, 165 , 101 S.Ct. 1614, 1621 , 68 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981); May v. Transworld Drilling Co., 786 F.2d 1261, 1264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 854 , 107 S.Ct. 190 , 93 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986).

1980The distinction between the rule and its exception was well stated by Professor McMahon in 23 La.L.R. 378 at 385-386, and approvingly cited in International Harvester Credit Corp. v. McGill, supra: "The distinction between the cumulation of two or more separate actions in the same suit and plural prayers for relief based on the same cause of action is procedurally important.

1976Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., 225 La. 51 , 72 So.2d 257 (1954) as follows: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency in law of the petition and the exhibits attached thereto. * * * The latter is triable entirely on the face of the papers, while evidence may be received under an exception of no right of action for the purpose of showing

1976Martin Lumber Co. v. Saint Denis Securities Co., 225 La. 51 , 72 So.2d 257 (1954) as follows: "Generally speaking, an exception of no right of action serves to question the right of a plaintiff to maintain his suit, i. e., his capacity to sue or his interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, whereas an exception of no cause of action addresses itself to the sufficiency in law of the petition and the exhibits attached thereto. * * * The latter is triable entirely on the face of the papers, while evidence may be received under an exception of no right of action for the purpose of showing

1961In Rapides Grocery Company v. Vann, La.App.2d Cir., 1956, 84 So.2d 831 this court devoted its consideration to the question of whether the exception of no right of action, in addition to challenging the capacity and interest of plaintiff, may also be employed to question plaintiff’s right to assert his demand against a particular defendant. ■ Our affirmative answer to the question so posed was reviewed and reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1956, 230 La. 829 , 89 So.2d 359 .

1958In the recent case of Leteff v. Maryland Casualty Co., 82 So. 2d 80, 82 , this court through Judge Tate as its organ stated: “It is well settled that there is a distinction between the exception of no right of action, and the exception of no cause of action.

1958In the recent case of Leteff v. Maryland Casualty Co., 82 So. 2d 80, 82 , this court through Judge Tate as its organ stated: “It is well settled that there is a distinction between the exception of no right of action, and the exception of no cause of action.

1958Wischer v. Madison Realty Co., 231 *508 La. 704, 92 So.2d 589 ; Rapides Grocery Co. v. Vann, 230 La. 829 , 89 So.2d 359 ; Richard v. National Surety Corp., La.App. 1 Cir., 99 So.2d 831 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 95 So.2d 734 ; Leteff v. Maryland Cas.

1958Wischer v. Madison Realty Co., 231 *508 La. 704, 92 So.2d 589 ; Rapides Grocery Co. v. Vann, 230 La. 829 , 89 So.2d 359 ; Richard v. National Surety Corp., La.App. 1 Cir., 99 So.2d 831 ; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Gulf Refining Co., La.App. 1 Cir., 95 So.2d 734 ; Leteff v. Maryland Cas.

1957In the recent case of Stevens v. Johnson, 230 La. 101 , 87 So.2d 743, 748 , we drew a distinction between the exception of want of capacity and of no right of action.

1957In the recent case of Stevens v. Johnson, 230 La. 101 , 87 So.2d 743, 748 , we drew a distinction between the exception of want of capacity and of no right of action.

1934The distinction between the immunity granted to witnesses and the immunity granted to litigants is pointed out in Lescale v. Joseph Schwartz, 116 La. 293 , 40 So. 708, 711 , one of the cases cited, where referring to Burke v. Ryan, supra, the court said that case involved the privilege of a witness, an entirely different matter- from the privilege of a litigant.